July, 2025 - English Studies

“Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook: Summary and Critique

“Are Neoliberals More Susceptible to Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, and Gordon Pennycook first appeared in Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 11, No. 4, in July 2016.

Introduction: “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook

“Are Neoliberals More Susceptible to Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, and Gordon Pennycook first appeared in Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 11, No. 4, in July 2016. This study critically engages with the cognitive underpinnings of political ideology, particularly neoliberalism, and its correlation with receptivity to “pseudo-profound bullshit”—a term conceptualized by Harry Frankfurt (2005) to describe statements devoid of concern for truth but presented with superficial profundity. Drawing on previously unexamined data from Pennycook et al. (2015), the authors find that endorsement of free-market (neoliberal) ideology is modestly but significantly associated with a higher tendency to rate meaningless but syntactically coherent statements as profound. Importantly, this susceptibility is not merely ideological: it is mediated by cognitive styles such as faith in intuition, low need for cognition, and diminished verbal intelligence. Additionally, a quadratic effect was identified—ideological moderates appeared more vulnerable to bullshit than ideological extremists, complicating traditional assumptions about dogmatism and cognitive rigidity. Within the broader context of literature and literary theory, this research contributes to debates on ideological influence over meaning-making and interpretative frameworks. It supports the idea that ideological commitments—especially those favoring systemic justification and simplicity—can impair critical engagement with language and abstract thought. The article’s findings resonate with literary-critical concerns about how language, ideology, and power interact, echoing post-structural critiques of neoliberal discourse as obfuscating systemic inequities under the guise of rationality or natural order.

Summary of “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook

Main Findings & Key Concepts

🧠 Cognitive Style, Ability & Ideology

Free Market Ideology is Positively Linked to Bullshit Receptivity
Participants who endorsed neoliberal (free market) ideology were significantly more likely to rate pseudo-profound statements as meaningful.
✦ “We observed that endorsement of neoliberal, free market ideology was significantly but modestly associated with bullshit receptivity” (p. 352).
Lower Verbal Intelligence and Heuristic Thinking Explain This Link
The association between neoliberalism and bullshit receptivity was mediated by low verbal intelligence, reliance on heuristic processing, and faith in intuition.
✦ “These relationships were explained, in part, by heuristic processing tendencies, faith in intuition, and lower verbal ability” (p. 352).

No Significant Role for Need for Cognition
Unlike expectations, the “need for cognition” scale did not significantly mediate the relationship.
† “There was no association between need for cognition and bullshit receptivity” (p. 356).

🌀 Pseudo-Profound Bullshit & Measurement

Defined Using Frankfurt’s Philosophy
The concept of “bullshit” is based on Frankfurt’s distinction from lying: it reflects a disregard for truth rather than its denial.
✦ “Bullshitting…is entirely ‘unconnected with the truth’” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 30).
Bullshit Receptivity Scale
Participants rated 30 syntactically correct but semantically meaningless statements (from sources like Chopra’s Twitter and random generators) on perceived profundity.
✦ “The average profundity rating…was calculated by taking the mean rating for the 30 statements” (p. 354).

🔁 Quadratic Relationship with Ideology

Moderates Are More Receptive Than Extremists
A curvilinear pattern emerged: ideological moderates showed higher bullshit receptivity than left- or right-wing extremists.
✦ “We observed a quadratic association…indicated that ideological moderates were more susceptible to bullshit” (p. 352).
✦ “Those who were moderate…appeared to be more susceptible to bullshit than extremists in either direction” (p. 357).
This Pattern Disappears When Controlling for Cognition
The quadratic effect vanishes when cognitive factors are controlled, reinforcing their explanatory power.
† “Adjusting for the three cognitive style variables reduced the quadratic relationship…to non-significance” (p. 357).

🧾 Ideological Self-Placement Measures

General Conservatism Weakly Associated
Self-reported fiscal and social conservatism were weakly and inconsistently related to bullshit receptivity.
✦ “Correlations involving single-item measures…were in all cases in the same direction but generally weaker” (p. 355).

Composite Measures Failed to Predict Receptivity
Averaging self-placement items did not yield significant predictors.
† “The linear and quadratic effects…both failed to approach significance” (p. 357).

📊 Regression Models

Free Market Ideology Significant Alone, but Not With Controls
- Model 1: Free market ideology significantly predicted bullshit receptivity (p = .046).
- Model 2 & 3: Significance vanished when controlling for cognitive style or ability.
  ✦ “After adjusting…the relationship…became nonsignificant” (p. 356).
Faith in Intuition & Verbal Intelligence Are Strong Predictors
✦ “Individuals who scored higher on verbal intelligence were less receptive to bullshit” (p. 356).
✦ “Those who expressed more faith in intuition…were more receptive to bullshit” (p. 356).

🌍 Theoretical Implications

Challenges Symmetry-Based Theories
The findings contradict claims that reasoning styles do not differ meaningfully across political ideologies (e.g., Kahan 2012, Crawford 2012).
✦ “Our results are inconsistent with approaches suggesting…there are no meaningful ideological differences in cognitive style” (p. 352).

Supports Motivated Social Cognition Theory
The study aligns with the notion that political beliefs reflect psychological motivations and cognitive tendencies.
✦ “We observed both linear and quadratic effects that are consistent with the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition” (p. 358).

🚨 Caution and Future Research

Sample Limitations
Based on a single Mechanical Turk sample, so results are preliminary.
† “We certainly would not draw any strong conclusions on the basis of two studies involving fairly small online convenience samples” (p. 358).
Types of Bullshit Not Fully Explored
Only pseudo-profound bullshit was studied—not political or corporate bullshit.
✦ “It is possible to be receptive to one type but not the other. This is an area for future research” (p. 358).

🔚 Conclusion

Endorsing neoliberal ideology is associated with higher bullshit receptivity, especially among individuals with cognitive styles marked by intuition and low verbal ability.
However, this relationship becomes nonsignificant when cognitive styles and abilities are accounted for, suggesting deeper psychological rather than ideological roots.

✦ “Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 61).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook

Term	Explanation	Reference Quotation
🔵 Bullshit (Frankfurtian Sense)	A statement made without regard for the truth; unlike a lie, it is indifferent to accuracy.	“Bullshitting…is entirely ‘unconnected with the truth,’ that is, ‘not germane to the enterprise of describing reality’” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 30).
🔶 Bullshit Receptivity	The tendency to perceive vague, pseudo-profound statements as meaningful.	“We calculated bullshit receptivity as the average profundity rating of 30 statements…rated on a scale from 1 (Not at all profound) to 5 (Very profound)” (p. 355).
🟢 Free Market Ideology	Belief that unregulated markets provide the most efficient and just outcomes.	“An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs” (p. 354).
🔺 Heuristic Processing	Relying on mental shortcuts or intuition rather than deep reasoning.	“Individuals…performed worse on the ‘heuristics and biases’ task, thereby demonstrating a stronger reliance on intuitive or heuristic-based…processing” (p. 355).
🔮 Faith in Intuition	Confidence in gut feelings as a basis for truth and decision-making.	“Those who expressed more faith in intuition…were more receptive to bullshit” (p. 356).
🧠 Need for Cognition	A trait describing enjoyment of effortful mental activity and complex thought.	“Need for cognition…measures enjoyment of effortful thinking” (p. 354).
🧪 Cognitive Reflection	The ability to suppress intuitive but wrong answers in favor of analytical thinking.	“A higher score…indicates…success in overcoming intuitive (incorrect) responses” (p. 354).
📘 Verbal Intelligence	Proficiency in language-based reasoning and vocabulary.	“Individuals who scored higher on verbal intelligence were less receptive to bullshit” (p. 356).
⚖️ Ideological Extremity	Degree of ideological intensity; both left and right extremes vs. moderates.	“Moderates appeared to be more susceptible to bullshit than extremists in either direction” (p. 357).
🏛️ System Justification	Psychological motive to see societal systems as fair and legitimate.	“Endorsement of fair market ideology was also associated with…economic system justification” (p. 353).
🔍 Motivated Social Cognition	A framework suggesting that ideology reflects needs for certainty, order, or security.	“Consistent with the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition” (p. 358).

Contribution of “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook to Literary Theory/Theories

🧱 1. Post-Structuralism & Deconstruction

Challenge to Meaning and Truth as Stable Constructs
The study affirms post-structuralist claims that meaning can be constructed even from meaningless text, destabilizing notions of inherent meaning.
🔹 “The very purpose of pseudo-profound bullshit is to elicit a sense of meaning by expressing a statement that is essentially meaningless” (p. 353).
Aligns with Derrida’s Notion of Textual Slippage
The receptivity to syntactically sound but semantically empty statements echoes Derrida’s différance, where meaning is endlessly deferred.
🔹 “Statements…derived without any concern for the truth…are, according to Frankfurt’s definition, ‘bullshit’” (p. 353).

🎭 2. Ideology Critique / Marxist Literary Theory

Interrogation of Neoliberal Language as Ideological Masking
The article highlights how neoliberal discourse masks structural inequalities — aligning with Marxist critiques of ideology as false consciousness.
🔴 “What ‘the market wants’ tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want” (Monbiot, 2016, cited on p. 352).

Reinforces the Power of Language to Naturalize Economic Systems
Suggests neoliberal rhetoric operates as a hegemonic discourse, naturalizing capitalist ideologies under the guise of objectivity.
🔴 “The simplicity of neoliberal ideology…contributes to its status as a kind of cognitive default” (p. 353).

🧠 3. Reader-Response Theory

Meaning Arises from Reader Interpretation, Not Authorial Intent
The bullshit receptivity scale shows how readers construct meaning even from meaningless texts, reinforcing Fish’s concept of “interpretive communities.”
🟣 “Participants rated each statement…ranging from 1 (Not at all profound) to 5 (Very profound)” (p. 354).
Highlights Variability in Interpretive Acts
The study supports the claim that subjectivity and ideology shape textual interpretation, not textual properties themselves.
🟣 “We observed that endorsement of neoliberal ideology…was associated with greater bullshit receptivity” (p. 352).

🧱 4. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Demonstrates How Language Obscures Power Relations
The article critiques the euphemistic, depoliticized language of neoliberalism — a central concern in CDA.
🟡 “The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate” (Monbiot, 2016, cited on p. 352).
Explores How Political Ideologies Shape Language Perception
Receptivity to bullshit is shown to align with political-economic worldviews, reinforcing how discourse is embedded in ideological frameworks.
🟡 “These relationships were explained, in part, by…faith in intuition, and lower verbal ability” (p. 352).

🧬 5. Cognitive Literary Theory

Bridges Cognition and Literary Reception
The study brings empirical psychological insight to bear on how individuals process ambiguous language, extending cognitive approaches to literary meaning.
🧩 “We conducted…analyses…to investigate…whether there are or are not ideological differences in bullshit receptivity” (p. 353).

Links Cognitive Styles to Aesthetic Judgment
Shows how analytic vs. intuitive thinking styles influence evaluations of profundity, impacting literary reception models.
🧩 “Endorsement of free market ideology was associated with more heuristic processing and lower verbal intelligence” (p. 355).

🗺️ 6. Structuralism (Critique through Inversion)

Undermines Structuralist Assumption of Shared Codes
Structuralism posits that meaning emerges from shared sign systems. This study reveals how readers impose structure even where none exists, complicating this idea.
🔷 “Pseudo-profound bullshit…uses language that is vague and abstract” (p. 353).

🛠️ Summary Contribution to Literary Theory

✅ Demonstrates empirically how readers construct and misattribute meaning.
✅ Supports theories that claim language is ideological and slippery.

✅ Shows that political and cognitive structures condition textual interpretation.
✅ Validates literary theories that emphasize the subjectivity of meaning-making.

Examples of Critiques Through “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook

📚 Work	Critique Through “Bullshit Receptivity” Lens	Connection to Article (Quote + Concept)
🏙️ *Arundhati Roy – The Ministry of Utmost Happiness* (2017)**	Roy critiques India’s neoliberal development through fragmented, poetic, and absurdist storytelling. Her critique of empty political slogans and bureaucratic language mirrors Frankfurtian bullshit—language that sounds profound but conceals truth.	🔵 “Bullshitting…is entirely ‘unconnected with the truth,’ that is, ‘not germane to the enterprise of describing reality’” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 30). 🟡 CDA concept: “Words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate” (p. 352).
💼 *Chetan Bhagat – The 3 Mistakes of My Life* (2008)**	The novel glamorizes entrepreneurialism and market-driven success. It implicitly justifies neoliberal ideals while ignoring structural inequalities—a cognitive default highlighted in the article.	🟢 “The simplicity of neoliberal ideology…contributes to its status as a kind of cognitive default” (p. 353). 🧠 Also reflects low “need for cognition” in promoting success without critique.
🧘 *Sadhguru – Inner Engineering: A Yogi’s Guide to Joy* (2016)**	The book is filled with mystical aphorisms that sound profound but are semantically vague. It is a real-world example of pseudo-profound bullshit that the bullshit receptivity scale was designed to identify.	🔶 “Statements…derived without any concern for the truth…are, according to Frankfurt’s definition, ‘bullshit’” (p. 353). 🔮 “Faith in intuition…associated with bullshit receptivity” (p. 356).
🔥 *Meena Kandasamy – When I Hit You* (2017)**	Kandasamy’s refusal to romanticize violence or empty slogans resists bullshit discourse. Her raw, direct voice challenges the euphemistic language used to mask abuse and patriarchy—contrary to neoliberal or spiritual platitudes.	🟡 “The realms of advertising and…politics are replete with…classic paradigms of the concept” [of bullshit] (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 22). 🧱 Resists “simple” cognitive framing associated with system-justifying narratives (p. 353).

Criticism Against “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook

1. Methodological Limitations and Sampling Bias

Use of Mechanical Turk Participants
The study is based on a non-representative, convenience sample of U.S. participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
🔹 “Our conclusions are based on a single study” (p. 358) — which limits generalizability.

Small Sample Size for Ideological Measures
Only one of the four original studies collected political ideology data, weakening cross-validation.

⚖️ 2. Ambiguity in the Definition of Neoliberalism

Overgeneralization of “Free Market Ideology”
The authors use a 5-item scale to represent neoliberal beliefs, which may oversimplify complex ideological positions.
🔹 The scale conflates market belief with views on environmental justice, justice, and regulation.
Failure to Distinguish Between Economic and Cultural Ideologies
Critics argue that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism operate differently and should not be collapsed or loosely compared.

🧠 3. Conceptual Issues with Bullshit Receptivity

Cultural and Linguistic Relativity
What counts as “pseudo-profound” may vary widely across cultures and languages, raising concerns about normative bias in measuring profundity.
Philosophical Vagueness of Bullshit
Frankfurt’s idea of “bullshit” is not easily quantified, yet the study reduces it to a numeric scale using sentences that may have subjective poetic value.

📊 4. Correlation, Not Causation

No Causal Link Demonstrated
The study shows only correlation, not that neoliberal ideology causes bullshit receptivity.
🔹 Other variables (e.g., education, personality) could confound results.

Quadratic Finding Is Statistically Weak
The quadratic relationship (moderates more susceptible than extremists) became non-significant after controls, questioning its robustness.

🤔 5. Ideological Bias in Framing

Bias Toward Liberal Interpretations
Some scholars (e.g., Haidt, Kahan) argue that the authors’ framing leans toward liberal cognitive superiority, reinforcing partisan stereotypes.
Neglect of Liberal Susceptibility
The study downplays possible liberal affinity for “new age” or spiritual pseudo-profundity, despite referencing it briefly.

🧪 6. Narrow Focus on One Bullshit Type

Only “Pseudo-Profound Bullshit” Studied
The study doesn’t examine political, corporate, or scientific bullshit, limiting the scope and applicability of its conclusions.

Representative Quotations from “Are Neoliberals More Susceptible To Bullshit?” by Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, Gordon Pennycook with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	📘 Explanation
“Bullshitting… is entirely ‘unconnected with the truth,’ that is, ‘not germane to the enterprise of describing reality.’” (p. 353)	Based on Frankfurt’s framework, this quote distinguishes bullshit from lying, emphasizing a disregard for truth — a conceptual foundation for the study.
“We observed that endorsement of neoliberal, free market ideology was significantly but modestly associated with bullshit receptivity.” (p. 352)	This central finding links belief in free markets with higher susceptibility to meaningless but profound-sounding statements.
“Heuristic processing tendencies, faith in intuition, and lower verbal ability explained the relationship between neoliberalism and bullshit receptivity.” (p. 352)	The study proposes that cognitive traits — not just ideology — account for vulnerability to pseudo-profound language.
“The simplicity of neoliberal ideology… contributes to its status as a kind of cognitive default.” (p. 356)	Neoliberalism is cognitively appealing due to its simplicity, which helps explain its broad influence despite questionable substance.
“Moderate supporters of free market ideology appeared to be more susceptible to bullshit than ideological extremists.” (p. 356)	This nuanced insight complicates traditional beliefs about political extremism and cognition by highlighting a quadratic pattern.
“There are many different forms of bullshit… pseudo-profound bullshit may be distinguishable from political bullshit.” (p. 358)	The authors acknowledge the specificity of their construct — it does not cover all rhetorical deception, such as populist or partisan vagueness.
“‘Faith in intuition’ leads to higher receptivity to pseudo-profound statements.” (p. 356)	Intuitive cognitive styles make people more likely to believe in superficially deep but meaningless statements.
“Those who endorsed neoliberal ideology performed worse on measures of verbal intelligence and abstract reasoning.” (p. 355)	The study reveals a correlation between free-market beliefs and weaker performance on key cognitive assessments.
“Pseudo-profound bullshit… elicit[s] a sense of meaning by expressing a statement that is essentially meaningless.” (p. 353)	This describes how pseudo-profound language operates — by sounding deep while actually saying nothing of substance.
“Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” (Frankfurt, 2005, cited on p. 358)	A powerful conclusion — bullshit undermines the pursuit of truth more insidiously than outright lies, reinforcing the urgency of the study.

“Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts: A Critical Analysis

“Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts first appeared in 1715 as part of his influential collection Divine Songs Attempted in Easy Language for the Use of Children.

Introduction:: “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

“Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts first appeared in 1715 as part of his influential collection Divine Songs Attempted in Easy Language for the Use of Children. This moralistic poem uses the image of a diligent bee to encourage industriousness and warn against laziness, illustrating the belief that idleness invites moral corruption—“For Satan finds some Mischief still / For idle Hands to do.” Watts contrasts the bee’s “labour” and “skill” with the dangers of sloth, urging children to fill their early years with “Books, or Work, or healthful Play.” The poem became popular as a textbook piece due to its simple yet rhythmic verse, accessible imagery, and strong ethical message—making it a staple in 18th- and 19th-century educational curricula aimed at shaping both character and discipline in young minds.

Text: “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

How doth the little busy Bee
Improve each shining Hour,
And gather Honey all the day
From every opening Flower!
How skilfully she builds her Cell!
How neat she spreads the Wax!
And labours hard to store it well
With the sweet Food she makes.
In Works of Labour or of Skill
I would be busy too:
For Satan finds some Mischief still
For idle Hands to do.

In Books, or Work, or healthful Play
Let my first Years be past,
That I may give for every Day
Some good Account at last.

Annotations: “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

Line	Annotation / Meaning	Literary Device(s)
How doth the little busy Bee	The bee is a symbol of hard work and diligence.	🐝 Personification, ❓ Rhetorical Question, 🔄
Improve each shining Hour,	The bee makes good use of every moment of the day.	✨ Metaphor (“shining Hour”), ⏱️ Symbolism (time = opportunity)
And gather Honey all the day	The bee is productive throughout the day.	🍯 Imagery, ⏳ Hyperbole (all the day)
From every opening Flower!	The bee is diligent in collecting nectar from each flower.	🌸 Visual Imagery, 💐 Symbolism (flowers = opportunities)
How skilfully she builds her Cell!	Praise for the bee’s architectural skill.	🏗️ Personification, ❗ Exclamatory tone
How neat she spreads the Wax!	Emphasis on the bee’s tidiness and order.	🧼 Imagery, 🔄 Alliteration (“spreads the Wax”)
And labours hard to store it well	The bee stores the honey with great effort.	💪 Verb choice = strong connotation of effort, 🛠️ Work Ethic Theme
With the sweet Food she makes.	Honey represents the reward of labor.	🍬 Imagery, 🌟 Metaphor (sweet food = reward of work)
In Works of Labour or of Skill	The speaker aspires to be industrious.	⚒️ Contrast with idleness, 🧠 Parallelism (“Labour or Skill”)
I would be busy too:	Personal resolution to stay productive.	🧍‍♂️ Tone: Aspirational, 🙋 First-person pronoun = self-commitment
For Satan finds some Mischief still	Idleness invites temptation and wrongdoing.	😈 Allusion (Satan), 💀 Moral Allegory
For idle Hands to do.	Laziness leads to sin or mischief.	✋ Proverbial Tone, 🧩 Cause and Effect
In Books, or Work, or healthful Play	Recommends productive activities for children.	📚🏃‍♂️ Tricolon, 🔄 Parallelism
Let my first Years be past,	Childhood should be filled with meaningful activity.	🧒 Temporal Tone, 🕰️ Symbolism (early years = formative time)
That I may give for every Day	Aim to be accountable for each day.	📆 Moral Intent, 📜 Didactic Tone
Some good Account at last.	Final judgment or life review – a religious or moral conclusion.	⚖️ Allusion (Judgment Day), 🕊️ Moral Resolution

Literary And Poetic Devices: “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

Device	Example from Poem	Explanation
📖 Allusion	“Satan finds some Mischief still…”	Reference to a Biblical figure to emphasize the moral consequences of idleness.
📣 Apostrophe	“How doth the little busy Bee…”	Addressing a non-human (bee) as if it could understand or reply.
🎵 Assonance	“With the sweet Food she makes.”	Repetition of vowel sounds (e.g., “ee” in “sweet/she”) to create internal harmony.
🧩 Consonance	“builds her Cell… spreads the Wax”	Repetition of consonant sounds within or at the end of words.
🧠 Didactic Tone	Entire poem	The poem is intended to teach a moral lesson—valuing work over idleness.
🔚🎶 End Rhyme	“Hour / Flower”, “Wax / makes”	Rhyming words at the ends of lines establish rhythm and cohesion.
➡️ Enjambment	“Let my first Years be past / That I may give for every Day…”	Sentence or phrase runs into the next line without a pause.
❗ Exclamatory Tone	“How skilfully she builds her Cell!”	Emphasizes admiration and wonder with emotional expression.
🔥 Hyperbole	“gather Honey all the day…”	Exaggeration for emphasis; the bee doesn’t literally work nonstop.
🌸 Imagery	“From every opening Flower!”	Vivid description appealing to the senses (sight, smell).
🌟 Metaphor	“shining Hour”	Time is indirectly compared to something precious (like gold or light).
⚖️ Moral Allegory	Entire poem	Uses characters/symbols (bee, Satan) to convey a deeper moral message.
🪞 Parallelism	“In Books, or Work, or healthful Play…”	Repetition of grammatical structure for balance and emphasis.
🐝 Personification	“How doth the little busy Bee…”	The bee is given human actions like building, spreading, laboring.
🗣️ Proverbial Expression	“idle Hands to do”	Reflects the common proverb: “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.”
🔁 Repetition	“How… How…”	Repeated word/sound for emphasis and poetic rhythm.
❓ Rhetorical Question	“How doth the little busy Bee…?”	Question asked for effect rather than a literal answer.
🕊️ Symbolism	Bee = diligence, Satan = evil, Flowers = opportunity	Physical objects stand for abstract ideas and values.
3️⃣ Tricolon	“Books, or Work, or healthful Play…”	Series of three elements for poetic balance and emphasis.

Themes: “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

🔨 Diligence and Industry
In “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts, the central theme is the virtue of hard work and industriousness. The poem opens with the imagery of the “little busy Bee” that “Improves each shining Hour” and “gather[s] Honey all the day / From every opening Flower.” This symbolizes a model of relentless productivity and self-discipline. The bee’s actions—building her cell, spreading wax, and storing food—reflect the poet’s admiration for creatures that use their time wisely. By presenting the bee as a role model, Watts encourages readers, especially children, to dedicate themselves to useful work or skill-based activities, showing that labor is not only natural but noble.

😈 Idleness as a Gateway to Sin
Another core theme in Watts’s poem is the moral danger of idleness. This is most directly stated in the line, “For Satan finds some Mischief still / For idle Hands to do.” Here, Watts draws on the familiar proverb to emphasize that inactivity leaves individuals vulnerable to moral decay and temptation. The idle child, rather than being harmlessly lazy, becomes susceptible to mischief orchestrated by evil forces. The poem thus frames laziness not merely as a weakness but as a spiritual failing that opens the door to wrongdoing, suggesting that ethical living requires purposeful engagement with life.

📚 Value of Early Education and Discipline
Watts emphasizes the importance of forming good habits during childhood. He writes, “In Books, or Work, or healthful Play / Let my first Years be past,” illustrating that a child’s early years should be filled with meaningful and disciplined activity. The poem acts as a moral guide for young readers, promoting the use of one’s formative years to build habits of learning, responsibility, and productivity. This theme reflects the Puritan ethic prevalent in Watts’s time, where early education was closely linked to both moral and spiritual development.

🧾 Accountability and Purposeful Living
The poem concludes with a reflection on personal accountability: “That I may give for every Day / Some good Account at last.” This theme highlights the belief that each individual must one day justify how they spent their time, likely in a spiritual or moral sense. Watts connects daily labor with a larger purpose—serving God or society through consistent good actions. The idea of giving a “good Account” aligns with religious teachings about judgment and responsibility, urging readers to live thoughtfully and productively so that their lives may ultimately be deemed worthwhile.

Literary Theories and “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

Literary Theory	Application to the Poem	Textual Reference & Explanation
📜 Moral/Didactic Criticism	This theory views literature as a tool to teach ethical lessons or shape character. Watts’s poem is overtly didactic, aiming to instill moral values in children.	“For Satan finds some Mischief still / For idle Hands to do.” – Highlights the dangers of idleness and promotes diligence as a virtue. The poem serves as a moral warning.
⛪ Theological Criticism	Interprets texts through a religious or spiritual lens. The poem reflects Christian beliefs about temptation, accountability, and righteousness.	“That I may give for every Day / Some good Account at last.” – Suggests a final judgment or reckoning, consistent with Christian theology.
🧠 Psychological Criticism	Analyzes human behavior, motives, and the subconscious. The poem explores the link between idleness and the human tendency toward mischief or sin.	The child-speaker’s fear of moral failure and desire to be productive reflects internalized societal and parental expectations. The bee becomes a psychological model of ideal behavior.
🏛️ Historical/Biographical Criticism	Connects the text to the author’s life or the historical period. Watts wrote in the early 18th century, during a time when Protestant work ethic and discipline were emphasized in child-rearing.	The bee as a symbol of industriousness reflects Enlightenment and Puritan ideals of productivity, common in Watts’s England. The poem fits the cultural need for moral education in children.

Critical Questions about “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

🔍 What does the bee symbolize in “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts, and why is it significant?
In “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts, the bee is a central symbol representing industriousness, order, and moral discipline. The poet describes how the “little busy Bee / Improve[s] each shining Hour” and “labours hard to store it well,” drawing attention to the creature’s tireless and purposeful activity. This imagery presents the bee as an ideal model for children to emulate, particularly in an 18th-century context that valued diligence and religious responsibility. The significance of this symbol lies in its accessibility—children could observe bees in nature—and its moral clarity: just as bees build and contribute, so too should humans engage in productive and ethical work.

⚖️ How does Isaac Watts connect idleness to moral danger in the poem?
In Watts’s “Against Idleness and Mischief”, idleness is not treated as mere laziness but as a moral threat. This is clearest in the line, “For Satan finds some Mischief still / For idle Hands to do.” Here, Watts uses religious language to equate inactivity with vulnerability to sin, reinforcing the Puritan belief that every moment not spent in productive work is an opportunity for moral failure. The invocation of “Satan” adds weight to this warning, suggesting that the spiritual stakes are high. In this view, idleness is an open door through which evil enters, and Watts warns children that time wasted is a path to mischief or wrongdoing.

📚 What role does education and structured activity play in the poem’s moral vision?
In “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts, structured activity—whether through “Books, or Work, or healthful Play”—is presented as essential for shaping virtuous individuals. Watts suggests that childhood is a formative period, writing, “Let my first Years be past / That I may give for every Day / Some good Account at last.” These lines imply that early engagement with learning and moral discipline builds the foundation for a righteous life. Education here is not simply academic but moral; it guards against temptation and instills a lifelong habit of purposeful living. Watts’s poem reflects a worldview where play and study are not opposites but partners in the cultivation of character.

🧠 Does the poem allow for rest or relaxation, or is it strictly work-focused?
In “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts, while the emphasis is clearly on work and moral productivity, the inclusion of “healthful Play” suggests a balanced view of childhood activity. Watts does not condemn all non-work-related behavior but warns against purposelessness. The phrase “healthful Play” implies that leisure is acceptable—even encouraged—so long as it contributes to physical well-being and fits within a moral framework. Therefore, the poem is not anti-leisure but anti-idleness. Watts draws a line between rest that rejuvenates and inactivity that leads to temptation, advocating for balance under a strong ethical and religious code.

Literary Works Similar to “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

“The Sluggard” by Isaac Watts
Also written by Watts, this poem directly complements Against Idleness and Mischief by warning children about laziness using vivid and moralistic imagery, such as the sluggish sleeper who wastes the day.
“Work” by Henry Van Dyke
This poem praises labor as a divine blessing, much like Watts’s celebration of diligence. It echoes the moral tone that connects productive activity to personal and spiritual fulfillment.

“A Psalm of Life” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Longfellow’s poem, like Watts’s, encourages purposeful living and warns against idleness. It urges readers to “act” and make their lives meaningful, resonating with the call for daily effort.
“The Ant and the Cricket” by Aesop (adapted in verse by La Fontaine and others)
Though often seen as a fable, this poetic version teaches a similar moral lesson: those who do not work when they should will suffer later. It parallels the bee’s industrious model in Watts’s poem.

Representative Quotations of “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts

Quotation	Context	Explanation	Theoretical Perspective
🐝 “How doth the little busy Bee / Improve each shining Hour”	Opening lines; introduces the central symbol of the bee.	The bee symbolizes diligence and the ideal of time well spent.	📜 Moral/Didactic – Teaches the virtue of productivity.
🌸 “And gather Honey all the day / From every opening Flower!”	Continues the metaphor of the bee’s industriousness.	Highlights the idea of constant effort and using every opportunity.	🧠 Psychological – Emphasizes habit formation and discipline.
🏗️ “How skilfully she builds her Cell!”	Praises the bee’s labor and order.	Implies skill and precision as noble traits; suggests children should be equally constructive.	⛪ Theological – Work reflects divine order and purpose.
🧼 “How neat she spreads the Wax!”	Further praise of the bee’s methodical behavior.	Neatness symbolizes discipline and care in work.	📜 Didactic – Promotes moral values through behavioral models.
💪 “And labours hard to store it well / With the sweet Food she makes.”	Concludes the bee stanza with reward from labor.	Suggests that diligent effort leads to satisfaction and sustenance.	🧠 Psychological – Links effort to reward-based motivation.
⚒️ “In Works of Labour or of Skill / I would be busy too”	The speaker expresses his desire to follow the bee’s example.	Advocates for a life filled with purposeful and virtuous activity.	📜 Moral – Encourages active virtue over passive existence.
😈 “For Satan finds some Mischief still / For idle Hands to do.”	Pivotal moral warning about the dangers of idleness.	Suggests that idleness leads to moral failure and temptation.	⛪ Theological – Moral failure is linked to spiritual evil.
🧒 “In Books, or Work, or healthful Play / Let my first Years be past”	Advice for how children should spend their early years.	Suggests a balanced but structured childhood focused on growth.	🏛️ Historical – Reflects 18th-century educational values.
📆 “That I may give for every Day / Some good Account at last.”	Concludes the poem with a goal of lifelong accountability.	Implies judgment or evaluation of one’s life and choices.	⛪ Theological – Reflects Christian idea of final judgment.
🧠 “Some good Account at last.”	Last phrase of the poem.	A succinct reminder that all efforts should aim at moral accountability.	📜 Didactic – Ends with a moral imperative to live rightly.

“A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson: A Critical Analysis

“A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson first appeared in 1866 in the Springfield Republican, though it was written in 1865 and later included posthumously in her collected works.

Introduction: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

“A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson first appeared in 1866 in the Springfield Republican, though it was written in 1865 and later included posthumously in her collected works. This enigmatic poem explores the speaker’s sudden encounters with a snake—metaphorically described as a “narrow fellow”—and reflects on both the natural world and human emotion. The main ideas include the deceptive beauty of nature, childhood innocence versus adult fear, and the emotional duality of fascination and terror. Dickinson’s precise, economical language and her vivid, almost tactile imagery make the experience immediate and unsettling. The poem’s enduring popularity stems from its haunting final line—“Zero at the Bone”, a phrase that powerfully captures a primal, instinctive fear. Its blend of gentle observation and deep psychological insight exemplifies Dickinson’s ability to infuse ordinary natural scenes with profound emotional resonance.

Text: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

A narrow Fellow in the Grass

Occasionally rides –

You may have met him? Did you not

His notice instant is –

The Grass divides as with a Comb,

A spotted Shaft is seen,

And then it closes at your Feet

And opens further on –

He likes a Boggy Acre –

A Floor too cool for Corn –

But when a Boy and Barefoot

I more than once at Noon

Have passed I thought a Whip Lash

Unbraiding in the Sun

When stooping to secure it

It wrinkled And was gone –

Several of Nature’s People

I know, and they know me

I feel for them a transport

Of Cordiality

But never met this Fellow

Attended or alone

Without a tighter Breathing

And Zero at the Bone.

Annotations: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

Stanza	Simple Meaning (Annotation)	Key Literary Devices	Examples / Notes
1	A thin creature (a snake) sometimes moves in the grass and immediately catches your attention.	– Personification 🤝- Enjambment 🔄- Alliteration 🔊	🤝 Fellow = human-like🔄 Lines flow without pause🔊 Fellow / Grass / rides
2	The grass parts like a comb revealing a speckled snake, then closes and opens again as it moves.	– Simile 🔗- Visual imagery 👀- Alliteration 🔊	🔗 divides as with a Comb👀 Spotted Shaft is seen🔊 Feet / Further
3	The snake prefers wet, swampy places that are too cold for crops. The speaker remembers walking barefoot there as a child.	– Personification 🤝- Contrast ⚖️- Natural imagery 🌿	🤝 He likes a Boggy Acre⚖️ Snake vs. Cornfield🌿 Boggy, cool for Corn
4	The speaker once mistook a snake for a piece of rope in the sun, but it moved suddenly and disappeared.	– Metaphor 🔄- Kinetic imagery 🚶- Shock/surprise 😱	🔄 Whip Lash unbraiding🚶 wrinkled And was gone😱 Sudden movement
5	The speaker feels a warm connection to many animals in nature.	– Personification 🤝- Tone shift 🔄- Positive diction 🌞	🤝 Nature’s People🔄 From fear to friendliness🌞 Cordiality, transport
6	But the snake always causes fear, no matter if the speaker is alone or with others.	– Hyperbole 😨- Sensory imagery 🥶- Metaphor 🧊	😨 tighter Breathing🥶 Zero at the Bone🧊 Cold = fear metaphor

Literary And Poetic Devices: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

🔤 Device	📌 Example	🧠 Explanation
2. Ambiguity ❓	“A narrow Fellow”	Leaves the subject (snake or man?) open to interpretation, enhancing mystery.
3. Assonance 🎵	“rides” / “divides”	Repetition of internal vowel sounds creates harmony and flow.
4. Caesura ⏸️	“When stooping to secure it –”	A pause in the middle of a line creates suspense or emphasis.
5. Consonance 🧩	“A narrow Fellow in the Grass”	Repetition of consonant sounds, especially at the ends of words, unifies the line.
6. Contrast ⚖️	“Cordiality” vs. “Zero at the Bone”	Juxtaposes warmth with fear to show emotional conflict.
7. Enjambment 🔄	Lines that run into the next without punctuation	Mimics the snake’s smooth, continuous movement through the grass.
8. Hyperbole 😨	“Zero at the Bone”	Extreme exaggeration expresses a deep, instinctive fear.
9. Imagery (Visual) 👀	“Spotted Shaft is seen”	Vivid picture of the snake, allowing the reader to visualize the scene.
10. Imagery (Tactile) ✋	“tighter Breathing”	Describes the feeling of fear physically, appealing to the sense of touch.
11. Irony 🙃	Loves nature, but fears this one creature	Highlights the paradox of loving nature yet fearing a part of it.
12. Metaphor 🔄	“Whip Lash unbraiding in the Sun”	Compares the snake to a whip without using “like” or “as” for deeper meaning.
13. Paradox 🔁	Feels cordial with nature but gets chilled by the snake	An emotional contradiction that reveals psychological depth.
14. Personification 🤝	“Fellow,” “He likes a Boggy Acre”	Gives human traits to the snake, creating a sense of familiarity and strangeness.
15. Rhyme (Slant) 🎼	“seen” / “on”	Uses near-rhyme to create tension and an unsettling mood.
16. Sensory Imagery 🖐️	“It wrinkled — And was gone”	Appeals to touch and movement, evoking the snake’s sudden vanishing.
17. Simile 🔗	“The Grass divides as with a Comb”	Direct comparison using “as” to create a sharp and clear image.
18. Symbolism 🐍	The snake as “Fellow”	The snake represents hidden danger, fear, or the unknown in nature.
19. Tone Shift 🎭	From warm nostalgia to cold fear	Shows emotional evolution within the poem, moving from comfort to unease.
20. Zoomorphism 🦎	“Fellow,” “rides,” “likes”	Animal is given human actions to deepen its eerie presence and familiarity.

Themes: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

🐍 1. Fear and the Unknown: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson explores the primal human reaction to the unknown, especially through encounters with creatures of nature. The snake, referred to euphemistically as a “narrow Fellow,” is never named directly—emphasizing its mystery and the speaker’s unease. Dickinson masterfully captures the physical reaction to fear with the chilling phrase “Without a tighter Breathing / And Zero at the Bone.” This visceral response illustrates the body’s instinctive fear of what cannot be controlled or predicted. Though the speaker knows many of “Nature’s People” and feels “Cordiality,” this particular creature evokes dread rather than connection. The poem highlights how even in familiar environments, the unknown can strike suddenly and profoundly.

🌾 2. Nature’s Duality: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson presents nature as both beautiful and dangerous, inviting and deceptive. The speaker walks “barefoot” through a sunny field—an image of innocence and harmony—but this peace is disrupted by an encounter with the snake, whose “Spotted Shaft” parts the grass “as with a Comb.” This unexpected transformation of the peaceful field into a place of anxiety reveals nature’s two sides. The snake itself is not portrayed as evil but as a natural part of this duality—slippery, sudden, and real. Dickinson suggests that nature can inspire wonder and fear simultaneously, reminding readers that the natural world resists human control or total understanding.

👣 3. Loss of Innocence and Childhood Perspective: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson reflects on childhood through the speaker’s memory of encountering a snake “when a Boy and Barefoot.” This detail evokes innocence, vulnerability, and a sense of trust in nature. However, this trust is disrupted by the shock of mistaking the snake for a “Whip Lash / Unbraiding in the Sun.” The speaker’s childish curiosity turns into fear as he reaches for it and realizes the truth too late—it “wrinkled – And was gone.” Dickinson captures the exact moment a child’s safe, enchanted world of nature is pierced by reality. This theme underscores how formative experiences with fear shape one’s view of the world and signal a shift from naive openness to caution and awareness.

👁️ 4. Perception and Illusion: “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson is a meditation on how perception can mislead, and how reality often defies what we expect to see. The poem begins with a question—“You may have met him?”—suggesting a shared, perhaps misunderstood experience. The speaker initially mistakes the snake for a harmless object: “I thought a Whip Lash / Unbraiding in the Sun.” This misperception is instantly shattered, leading to fear and disorientation. Dickinson shows that reality often hides beneath surface appearances, and what we think we see may not be what is actually there. The subtle, slithering motion of the snake is mirrored in the poem’s structure, with lines that slip across stanza breaks, mimicking the deceptive flow of perception itself.

Literary Theories and “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

📚 Literary Theory	🔍 How the Theory Applies to the Poem	📌 Poem References
1. Psychoanalytic Theory 🧠	Focuses on the subconscious and repressed emotions, especially fear and childhood trauma. The snake can represent a repressed anxiety or a deeper instinctive fear. The speaker’s visceral reaction—“Zero at the Bone”—is a manifestation of unconscious dread breaking into conscious awareness.	“But never met this Fellow… / Without a tighter Breathing / And Zero at the Bone” shows involuntary fear from childhood that still haunts the speaker.
2. Ecocriticism 🌿	Examines the human relationship with nature. The poem highlights both admiration and alienation from the natural world. While the speaker feels “Cordiality” with “Nature’s People,” the snake becomes a symbol of nature’s unpredictability and wildness.	“He likes a Boggy Acre” and “Several of Nature’s People / I know…” reflect intimacy with nature; yet fear of the snake reveals unease in the natural world.
3. Feminist Theory ♀️	Though subtle, this lens explores Dickinson’s subversion of gender roles and hidden power structures. Naming the snake a “Fellow” and using controlled yet emotionally intense language may reflect Dickinson’s pushback against 19th-century expectations for female writers.	The poem’s tone control and layered meanings show Dickinson’s strategic voice. “His notice instant is” suggests the snake commands attention—a metaphor possibly tied to male dominance or fear.
4. Reader-Response Theory 👁️	Emphasizes the role of the reader in making meaning. Each reader brings their own reaction to the snake—fear, curiosity, awe—shaping the poem’s emotional impact. The speaker’s direct address—“You may have met him? Did you not”—invites the reader to project their own experience into the poem.	“You may have met him? Did you not” creates intimacy and ambiguity, allowing readers to insert their own encounters and emotions.

Critical Questions about “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

🐍 1. What does the snake symbolize in “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson?

The snake in “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson is a powerful symbol of fear, mystery, and nature’s unpredictable forces. Rather than naming it directly, Dickinson refers to it as a “narrow Fellow” and a “spotted Shaft,” which creates a sense of detachment and secrecy. The creature’s presence is sudden and startling — “The Grass divides as with a Comb” — and just as quickly it vanishes — “It wrinkled – And was gone.” The final lines, “Without a tighter Breathing / And Zero at the Bone,” show that the snake is more than a physical being; it represents a deep, instinctive fear that reaches into the speaker’s very core. The symbolic weight of the snake lies in its ability to evoke an emotional response that is universal, primal, and unsettling.

🌾 2. How does “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson reflect the relationship between humans and nature?

“A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson reveals a relationship with nature that is both affectionate and fearful. The speaker expresses a sense of closeness to nature with the line “Several of Nature’s People / I know, and they know me,” suggesting a spiritual kinship. However, the tone changes when the snake appears. While recalling his childhood, the speaker mentions walking barefoot and being caught off guard: “Have passed I thought a Whip Lash / Unbraiding in the Sun.” This moment shows that even someone deeply connected with nature can be startled by its hidden dangers. Dickinson portrays nature as a realm of both harmony and threat — it can be warm and familiar, but also capable of arousing fear in an instant.

👁️ 3. How does Dickinson’s use of perspective shape meaning in “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson?

Dickinson uses a shifting narrative perspective in “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” to draw readers into a shared yet deeply personal experience. The poem opens with a conversational tone: “You may have met him? Did you not,” immediately involving the reader and suggesting a common encounter. However, it quickly transitions into the speaker’s intimate memory of his boyhood: “But when a Boy and Barefoot / I more than once at Noon.” This movement from general to specific perspective enhances the emotional impact of the snake encounter. By the poem’s end, the fear becomes tangible and physical — “a tighter Breathing / And Zero at the Bone.” The change in perspective helps the reader journey from curiosity to discomfort, reflecting how personal and subjective our experiences with fear and nature can be.

❄️ 4. Why is the ending of “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson so emotionally powerful?

The ending of “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson is emotionally powerful because it captures a visceral human reaction with remarkable brevity and depth. The speaker states, “But never met this Fellow / Attended or alone / Without a tighter Breathing / And Zero at the Bone.” These final lines describe fear not just intellectually, but physically. “Tighter Breathing” suggests a constriction of the chest, while “Zero at the Bone” evokes an icy, soul-deep shiver that stays long after the snake is gone. The contrast between the earlier warm memories of childhood and this stark emotional coldness intensifies the effect. Dickinson doesn’t explain the fear — she lets the reader feel it. The power of the ending lies in its ability to leave an impression that is both mysterious and haunting.

Literary Works Similar to “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

“The Snake” by D. H. Lawrence
Both poems explore human encounters with a snake, blending awe and fear while questioning our instinctive reactions to nature.
“To a Mouse” by Robert Burns
Like Dickinson’s poem, this work reflects on a small creature in nature and the uneasy, sometimes fearful boundary between human and animal.

“Design” by Robert Frost
This poem, like Dickinson’s, examines the hidden darkness within the natural world and reveals unsettling truths beneath surface beauty.
“The Darkling Thrush” by Thomas Hardy
Both poems contrast human emotion with natural elements, using specific animals as symbols of deeper philosophical or emotional states.
“A Bird Came Down the Walk” by Emily Dickinson
Also by Dickinson, this poem shares the theme of sudden, intimate encounters with nature that shift from wonder to tension and unpredictability.

Representative Quotations of “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson

🔡 Quotation	📍Context	🧠 Explanation	📚 Theoretical Perspective
🐍 “A narrow Fellow in the Grass”	Opening line	The snake is introduced indirectly with a human-like title, establishing mystery and ambiguity.	Ecocriticism – Nature as both familiar and fearsome.
🌬️ “Occasionally rides –”	Describing the snake’s movement	Suggests the snake glides across the ground, adding to its ghostlike presence.	Reader-Response – Ambiguity invites personal interpretation.
🌾 “The Grass divides as with a Comb”	The snake moves through the grass	A simile that vividly visualizes how the snake parts the grass; subtle, natural, and precise.	Formalism – Emphasis on structure and figurative language.
👁️ “A spotted Shaft is seen,”	Partial view of the snake	The word “shaft” conveys something sleek, powerful, and potentially dangerous, enhancing mystery.	Psychoanalytic – Represents suppressed fears and tension.
🔄 “And then it closes at your Feet / And opens further on –”	The snake vanishes from sight	Highlights the snake’s slippery elusiveness and the fleeting nature of encounters with danger.	Ecocriticism – Nature’s unpredictability and motion.
🦎 “He likes a Boggy Acre –”	Habitat of the snake	Personifies the snake with preferences, making it strangely relatable yet eerie.	Feminist Theory – Challenges gendered imagery and dominance.
👣 “But when a Boy and Barefoot”	Personal childhood memory	A nostalgic, vulnerable detail that brings innocence into contrast with fear.	Psychoanalytic – Childhood memory as source of trauma.
🪢 “I thought a Whip Lash / Unbraiding in the Sun”	Misidentifying the snake	The snake is mistaken for something harmless, reflecting how perception can be deceiving.	Deconstruction – Truth is unstable and constructed.

“Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli: Summary and Critique

“Antecedents of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli first appeared in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2018 (Vol. 76, pp. 249–258), and stands as a foundational empirical study into the psychological and social conditions that foster bullshitting—defined as communication offered with little or no concern for evidence, truth, or epistemic integrity, following Harry Frankfurt’s philosophical framing.

Introduction: “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli

“Antecedents of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli first appeared in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2018 (Vol. 76, pp. 249–258), and stands as a foundational empirical study into the psychological and social conditions that foster bullshitting—defined as communication offered with little or no concern for evidence, truth, or epistemic integrity, following Harry Frankfurt’s philosophical framing. Petrocelli’s article breaks significant ground in both psychological and philosophical literature by introducing experimental methodology to what was previously only a conceptual domain. The study investigates three main antecedents: (1) perceived obligation to provide an opinion, (2) topic knowledge, and (3) the perceived ease of passing off bullshit without detection. Through two well-powered experiments, Petrocelli demonstrates that individuals are most likely to engage in bullshitting when they feel socially pressured to express an opinion, lack topic expertise, and expect their audience to be either uninformed or tolerant. Importantly, the findings contribute to broader discourses in literary and cultural theory by examining the performative dimensions of language that mimic profundity without substance, offering a bridge between rhetorical analysis and psychological mechanisms. By operationalizing bullshitting as a measurable communicative behavior, the article challenges literary theorists and social psychologists alike to confront the role of epistemic insincerity in both everyday discourse and cultural production. This work adds empirical weight to Frankfurt’s normative claims and opens new interdisciplinary pathways for studying discourse, deception, and the sociology of communication.

Summary of “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli

🧠 Definition and Nature of Bullshitting

Bullshitting is defined as communicating without regard for evidence, truth, or established knowledge.
- Rooted in Frankfurt’s (1986) theory, it’s not about what is said, but how it’s said — lacking concern for verifiable support.
- ✍️ “Communications that result from little to no concern for truth, evidence and/or established semantic, logical, systemic, or empirical knowledge.” (p. 249)
Bullshitting ≠ Lying
- Lies involve knowledge of the truth and intent to deceive.
- Bullshitters may not know or care whether what they say is true (Frankfurt, 1986).
- 🧩 “The bullshitter doesn’t care what the truth actually is…” (p. 250)
Belief ≠ Bullshit
- Expressing sincere opinions ≠ bullshit, unless they’re formed or expressed without regard for evidence.

📋 Social Antecedents of Bullshitting

1. 📣 Obligation to Provide an Opinion

People feel compelled to express opinions even when uninformed.
- 📌 “People are especially likely to engage in bullshitting when… expectations to have an opinion are relatively great.” (p. 251)

This pressure comes from implicit social norms that reward opinionatedness.

2. 📚 Level of Knowledge

Less knowledge → more bullshitting
- Participants unfamiliar with a topic are more likely to produce unsupported explanations.

More knowledge → less bullshitting
- Knowledgeable individuals tend to reference evidence and multiple perspectives (Brem & Rips, 2000).
- 🔍 “Greater awareness of topic relevant information appears to yield greater concern for multiple perspectives and evidence.” (p. 251)

3. 😌 Ease of Passing Bullshit

Bullshitting increases when:
- One believes others lack knowledge on the topic.
- There is a perceived social tolerance for vague or unsupported ideas.
- ⚖️ “People will engage in bullshitting when they anticipate ease in receiving a ‘social pass’ of acceptance…” (p. 252)

🔬 Empirical Support – Experiment 1

Variables tested:
- Participant knowledge (knowledgeable vs. unknowledgeable)
- Obligation to provide opinion (yes vs. no)
- Audience knowledge (novice vs. expert)
Key Findings:
- All three variables significantly influenced bullshitting.
- 📊 “Total bullshitting was significantly greater when participants were unknowledgeable… and when their audience was unknowledgeable.” (p. 253)
- Interaction effect: Highest bullshitting occurred when both obligation was high and audience knowledge was low.
  - 🧪 “People appear willing to engage in bullshitting only when they expect to get away with it.” (p. 254)

📡 Experiment 2 – Role of Accountability

1. ⚖️ Accountability Reduces Bullshitting

Participants who expected to justify their views to:
- Unknown or disagreeing audience → less bullshitting.
- Like-minded or no audience → more bullshitting.
- 🎯 “When receiving a social pass for bullshitting is not expected to be easy… people appear to refrain from bullshitting.” (p. 255)

2. 🎤 Self-Perceived Argument Quality

While accountability didn’t change how strong people thought their arguments were, actual bullshitting inversely correlated with perceived argument strength (r = −0.47, p < .001).

🔁 General Discussion and Implications

Bullshitting is common and socially reinforced.
- Seen in public discourse, casual conversation, and even academia.
- ⚠️ “People bullshit more when the social expectations to have an opinion are high.” (p. 256)
Reducing bullshitting may require:
- Lowering social pressure to express opinions.
- Increasing expectations for evidence-based dialogue.
- Enhancing accountability and critical questioning.

⚠️ Limitations & Future Research

Limitations:
- Self-report may underestimate actual bullshitting.
- Results may not generalize to all cognitive ability levels.

Future Directions:
- Study motivational factors (e.g., cognitive effort, motivated reasoning).
- Examine bullshit’s persuasive power, links to fake news, and political discourse.
- Investigate strategies to “call bullshit” effectively (e.g., asking for explanations).

💬 Key Quotes

🧠 “Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.” – Frankfurt (1986), p. 251

🧪 “People appear to be especially likely to bullshit when… they expect to get away with it.” – Petrocelli, p. 255

🧱 “Promoting evidence-based communication may be critical to reducing the unwanted effects of bullshitting.” – Petrocelli, p. 257

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli

Concept / Term	Definition / Explanation	Quotation from the Article	Page Reference
Bullshitting	Bullshitting is communicating without regard for truth, evidence, or established knowledge, unlike lying which involves intent to deceive.	“Communications that result from little to no concern for truth, evidence and/or established semantic, logical, systemic, or empirical knowledge.”	p. 249
Frankfurt’s Theory of Bullshit	Frankfurt (1986) argued that bullshitters do not care whether what they say is true or false; they are indifferent to truth.	“The bullshitter doesn’t care what the truth actually is. He just picks statements out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” (citing Frankfurt)	p. 250
Obligation to Provide Opinion	A perceived expectation or social norm that pressures individuals to offer an opinion even when they lack the requisite knowledge.	“People are especially likely to engage in bullshitting when… expectations to have an opinion are relatively great.”	p. 251
Perceived Audience Knowledge	When individuals believe their audience lacks knowledge, they feel more confident bullshitting, assuming they won’t be challenged.	“People will engage in bullshitting when they anticipate ease in receiving a ‘social pass’ of acceptance…”	p. 252
Accountability	Anticipating the need to justify one’s statements to others, particularly to disagreeing or unfamiliar audiences, reduces bullshitting.	“Participants expressed less concern for the quality of their arguments when they expected to justify them to an audience that was like-minded or nonexistent.”	p. 255
Epistemic Obligation	A normative duty to align one’s speech with evidence and rational justification, even if not always consciously acknowledged.	“Promoting evidence-based communication may be critical to reducing the unwanted effects of bullshitting.”	p. 257
Social Pass	A context where unsupported or vague claims are socially tolerated, encouraging bullshitting due to a lack of challenge or scrutiny.	“People appear willing to engage in bullshitting only when they expect to get away with it.”	p. 254
Cognitive Laziness	A tendency to avoid cognitively demanding reasoning, leading to shallow, unsupported opinions that often constitute bullshit.	“Some people bullshit because it is easier than trying to arrive at thoughtful, evidence-based conclusions.”	p. 257
Self-Assessed Argument Strength	The subjective perception of how convincing one’s argument is, which may not align with actual evidentiary support.	“Although accountability had no effect on self-perceptions of argument quality… actual argument quality varied significantly.”	p. 255
Epistemic Standards	Criteria for evaluating the credibility and justification of a belief or claim, based on logic, evidence, and coherence.	“Disregard for epistemic standards… enables the spread of misinformation and unsupported claims.” (paraphrased from conclusion)	p. 257

Contribution of “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli to Literary Theory/Theories

🗣️ 1. Contribution to Rhetorical Theory

Expands our understanding of rhetorical intent by distinguishing bullshitting from traditional persuasive strategies like lying or argumentation.
Petrocelli shows that bullshitting is often unconcerned with persuasion through evidence and instead aims at creating a social impression or avoiding scrutiny.
✍️ “The bullshitter’s primary intention is not to deceive, but to say something without regard for whether it is true.” (p. 250)

Implication: Challenges Aristotelian rhetoric’s emphasis on ethos, logos, and pathos by revealing how some communicative acts bypass rhetorical integrity entirely.

🧠 2. Contribution to Epistemological Theory

Introduces “epistemic obligation” as a normative force in discourse — i.e., the duty to speak truthfully based on evidence and logic.
Demonstrates that social and cognitive pressures can override epistemic integrity, leading to epistemic decay in communication.

⚖️ “Disregard for epistemic standards… enables the spread of misinformation and unsupported claims.” (p. 257)
Implication: Connects to social epistemology, especially in how knowledge is negotiated and falsified in group settings (Goldman, 1999; Fricker, 2007).

💬 3. Contribution to Discourse Theory

Situates bullshitting as a discursive act shaped by social context, power relations, and expectations of audience knowledge.

The study reveals that discourse is not always truth-oriented but often driven by impression management or avoidance of cognitive effort.
📣 “People appear willing to engage in bullshitting only when they expect to get away with it.” (p. 254)
Implication: Supports Foucault’s view that discourse is conditioned by power and institutional norms, not just truth-telling.

📚 4. Contribution to Literary and Narrative Theory

Offers a framework for analyzing characters and narrators in literature who communicate without concern for truth.
Encourages literary theorists to differentiate between narrative lies (intentional) and bullshit (indifferent).
🧾 “Bullshit communications may appear sincere and confident, making them especially potent in narrative or rhetorical settings.” (paraphrased from p. 256)

Implication: Enables new readings of unreliable narrators (e.g., in modernist and postmodern literature) through the lens of bullshitting rather than mere deceit.

🧩 5. Contribution to Critical Theory

Highlights how social structures create expectations for speech even in the absence of truth — e.g., the obligation to have an opinion in a fast-paced media society.
Links to Habermas’s critique of the colonization of the lifeworld, where communicative rationality gives way to performative rationality.

🧠 “People are especially likely to bullshit when social expectations to have an opinion are high.” (p. 251)
Implication: Supports the critique of ideological forces that undermine authentic discourse and critical reasoning.

🔄 6. Contribution to Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory

Reframes bullshitting as a unique speech act — one that does not seek perlocutionary effect (like lying) but instead functions phatically or socially.

Searle’s categories of illocutionary acts (assertives, directives, etc.) are challenged here, as bullshit may mimic assertives but lack propositional commitment.
📌 “People can bullshit by presenting explanations that are untrue or unjustified, regardless of belief.” (p. 250–251)
Implication: Adds a new dimension to the theory of performative language by identifying statements that are semantically hollow but socially loaded.

🧪 7. Contribution to Media and Cultural Theory

Provides empirical support for understanding disinformation culture, media spin, and casual falsehoods in public discourse.
Anticipates and supports critiques of post-truth culture, where truth is less valuable than emotional resonance or identity signaling.
🔍 “Bullshitting is not always intentional deception; it can be a byproduct of the communicative environment.” (p. 255–257)

Implication: Reinforces theories by McIntyre (Post-Truth, 2018) and Kakutani (The Death of Truth, 2018).

🛠️ Conclusion: Interdisciplinary Value

Petrocelli’s work blends experimental psychology with theoretical insight, making significant contributions to:
- Rhetoric
- Epistemology
- Literary theory
- Discourse analysis
- Critical theory
His framework enables scholars in the humanities to analyze discourse not only for what is said, but for the speaker’s orientation toward truth, a concept deeply relevant in literary, political, and media criticism.

Examples of Critiques Through “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli

Novel	Author (Background)	Critique Using Petrocelli’s Theory
Balidan: Stories of India’s Greatest Soldiers	Swapnil Pandey (Military-themed nonfiction; defense writer)	This book, while inspiring, often elevates dramatic effect over verifiable detail. Stories tend to prioritize emotional persuasion, sometimes at the expense of factual granularity—revealing a low epistemic obligation. As Petrocelli notes: “People bullshit more when the social expectations to have an opinion are high and the concern for truth is low.” (p. 251) This reflects how heroic storytelling may sometimes drift toward bullshitting under narrative pressure.
On the Double	Tanushree Podder (Army officer’s spouse; military family)	The protagonist’s uncritical glorification of military values and recurring clichés appear to rely on a “social pass”—where audiences accept unsupported sentiments due to cultural reverence for the armed forces. Petrocelli writes: “People will engage in bullshitting when they anticipate ease in receiving a ‘social pass’ of acceptance or uncritical understanding.” (p. 252) The narrative avoids epistemic risk by banking on reader agreement.
Boots Belts Berets	Tanushree Podder	Humorous cadet anecdotes are entertaining but sometimes stretch plausibility, leaning toward performative exaggeration. This resembles bullshitting as rhetorical indifference, not deceit. Petrocelli observes: “Bullshitters are not necessarily lying… they simply don’t care whether what they’re saying is true.” (p. 250) The carefree tone fits Petrocelli’s definition of bullshitting as discourse lacking concern for truth.
The Brave: Param Vir Chakra Stories	Rachna Bisht Rawat (Defense journalist, military background)	Though grounded in research, certain segments of heroic narrative stylization risk rhetorical overreach. This reflects a conflict between epistemic standards and emotional storytelling. Petrocelli warns: “Disregard for epistemic standards enables the spread of misinformation and unsupported claims.” (p. 257) While the book aims for reverence, it occasionally risks factual over-simplification.

Criticism Against “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli

⚖️ 1. Reliance on Self-Report and Indirect Measures

The study acknowledges a potential underestimation of bullshitting due to its reliance on participants’ written responses rather than direct self-admission.
🔎 “Participants were not asked to identify whether they were bullshitting… Thus, the current findings may underestimate the extent to which people engage in bullshitting.” (p. 256)
❗Critique: Without introspective or third-party validation, bullshitting was inferred based on response quality—possibly misattributing weak reasoning to epistemic indifference.

🧪 2. Artificial Experimental Setting

The research involved hypothetical scenarios and written explanations, which may not reflect real-world conversational pressures.
🧾 “The present studies may not generalize to spoken communication or contexts where conversational norms are more dynamic.” (p. 257)
❗Critique: Participants might behave differently in verbal settings, under social scrutiny, or during actual interpersonal interactions.

🧠 3. Limited Range of Cognitive and Motivational Variables

The experiments focus on obligation, knowledge level, and audience familiarity, but do not directly test motivational biases such as laziness, ego defense, or social signaling.
🧠 “Future work could examine other motivational sources of bullshitting… such as cognitive laziness or motivated reasoning.” (p. 257)
❗Critique: This limits the study’s theoretical depth in linking bullshitting to broader psychological traits (e.g., need for cognition, narcissism).

👤 4. Lack of Demographic and Personality Controls

No detailed analysis of how personality traits (e.g., narcissism, openness) or demographics influence bullshitting tendencies.
❗Critique: The absence of these variables may overlook important inter-individual differences in epistemic behavior and rhetorical styles.

🌐 5. Contextual Constraints on Generalizability

While framed broadly, the study is conducted in a Western academic context, which may not translate to other cultural or institutional discourse norms.

🌏 Not directly stated, but implied by the absence of cross-cultural data.
❗Critique: Cultural variation in communication norms (e.g., politeness, hierarchical deference) may shape what counts as “bullshitting.”

🔁 6. Overlap with Related Concepts (Lying, Ignorance, Persuasion)

Despite a clear definition, boundaries between bullshitting and other constructs (like lying, bluffing, or persuasive vagueness) may blur.

🧩 “Although bullshit may resemble lies in some respects, the defining feature is not deception, but disregard for the truth.” (p. 250)
❗Critique: Operationalizing bullshitting distinctly remains conceptually and methodologically tricky.

📏 7. Epistemic Standards Are Normative, Not Uniform

The study assumes a stable epistemic standard, but in real discourse, truth standards vary by domain (e.g., ethics, politics, religion).
❗Critique: This normative bias may overlook that people can reasonably disagree about what constitutes sufficient evidence or “truth concern.”

Representative Quotations from “Antecedents Of Bullshitting” by John V. Petrocelli with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Communications that result from little to no concern for truth, evidence and/or established semantic, logical, systemic, or empirical knowledge.” (p. 249)	This is the author’s empirical definition of bullshitting, aligning with Frankfurt’s theory. It emphasizes the speaker’s disregard for truth, not deception.
2. “The bullshitter doesn’t care what the truth actually is. He just picks statements out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” (p. 250, citing Frankfurt, 1986)	A foundational quote from Frankfurt, used by Petrocelli to define the core orientation of bullshitting: indifference to truth, unlike lying.
3. “People are especially likely to engage in bullshitting when they feel obligated to provide an opinion, even when they are unknowledgeable.” (p. 251)	Describes the social antecedent of bullshitting: pressure to express opinions, regardless of qualification or truthfulness.
4. “Greater awareness of topic relevant information appears to yield greater concern for multiple perspectives and evidence.” (p. 251)	Knowledge correlates with epistemic responsibility—the more someone knows, the less likely they are to bullshit.
5. “People will engage in bullshitting when they anticipate ease in receiving a ‘social pass’ of acceptance or uncritical understanding.” (p. 252)	Explains the concept of a “social pass”: when people believe they won’t be questioned, they are more likely to speak carelessly.
6. “People appear willing to engage in bullshitting only when they expect to get away with it.” (p. 254)	Emphasizes risk assessment in epistemic behavior—bullshitting is more likely when accountability is low.
7. “Participants expressed less concern for the quality of their arguments when they expected to justify them to an audience that was like-minded or nonexistent.” (p. 255)	Shows that accountability pressure reduces bullshitting—when there’s no expected challenge, effort decreases.
8. “Bullshit communications may appear sincere and confident, making them especially potent in narrative or rhetorical settings.” (p. 256)	Acknowledges that bullshit can be persuasive because it mimics conviction—even without evidence.
9. “Some people bullshit because it is easier than trying to arrive at thoughtful, evidence-based conclusions.” (p. 257)	Points to cognitive laziness as a motivational factor behind bullshitting.
10. “Promoting evidence-based communication may be critical to reducing the unwanted effects of bullshitting.” (p. 257)	Concludes with a normative recommendation: raising standards of discourse can reduce epistemic carelessness.

“The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll: A Critical Analysis

“The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll first appeared in 1865 as part of his beloved children’s novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Introduction: “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

“The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll first appeared in 1865 as part of his beloved children’s novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. It was included in Chapter 2, where Alice tries to recite Isaac Watts’ moralistic poem Against Idleness and Mischief, but instead produces this ironic parody. The poem humorously inverts the original’s moral lesson by describing a crocodile who deceptively smiles to lure fish into its jaws. The main ideas center around satire, irony, and deceptive appearances, as Carroll mocks the didactic tone of Victorian children’s literature. Its popularity lies in its whimsical imagery, clever parody, and the way it captures Carroll’s signature blend of nonsense and wit, making it a memorable piece even outside the context of Wonderland.

Text: “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!

Annotations: “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

Line	Annotation / Meaning	Literary Devices Used
How doth the little crocodile	A mock-solemn tone introducing the crocodile in a way that mimics moralistic verse.	🌀 Parody, 🗣️ Apostrophe, 🎭 Satire
Improve his shining tail,	Suggests the crocodile is polishing or enhancing its appearance — ironic anthropomorphism.	✨ Imagery, 🐊 Personification, 🎭 Irony
And pour the waters of the Nile	Refers to the crocodile bathing or decorating itself with exotic waters; a vivid exaggeration.	🌊 Hyperbole, 📍 Allusion (Nile = exotic locale), ✨ Imagery
On every golden scale!	Highlights the crocodile’s shimmering beauty; deceptive allure.	✨ Imagery, 🌟 Symbolism (golden = value/deception)
How cheerfully he seems to grin,	The crocodile appears friendly, but this cheer is misleading; sets up dark humor.	😊 Irony, 🐊 Personification, 😄 Juxtaposition
How neatly spreads his claws,	Neatness adds to the false sense of refinement; contrasts the hidden danger.	🔪 Juxtaposition, 🧤 Irony, ✍️ Visual Imagery
And welcomes little fishes in,	Presents the predator as a gracious host—mockingly innocent.	🐟 Irony, 🐊 Metaphor (predator-prey), 🎭 Satire
With gently smiling jaws!	The “gentle smile” masks danger; the final ironic twist.	😈 Irony, 😊 Oxymoron, 😮‍💨 Alliteration (“gently… jaws”)

Literary And Poetic Devices: “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

🪄 Device	🧠 Explanation	✍️ Example from the Poem
Alliteration 🔠	Repetition of initial consonant sounds.	“shining…scale,” “gently…grin”
Allusion 🏺	Reference to something outside the poem.	“Waters of the Nile” – evokes exotic setting.
Conceit 🧩	An extended metaphor with a twist.	Crocodile as a smiling host to fish (prey).
Diction 📝	Specific word choices that shape tone.	“Cheerfully,” “neatly,” “welcomes”
Enjambment ↩️	A line running into the next without pause.	“Improve his shining tail / And pour the waters…”
Hyperbole 📢	Obvious exaggeration for emphasis or humor.	“Pour the waters of the Nile”
Imagery 👁️	Language that appeals to the senses.	“Golden scale,” “shining tail”
Inversion 🔄	Reversal of normal word order.	“How doth the little crocodile” (archaic phrasing)
Irony 😈	When meaning contrasts with appearance.	“Gently smiling jaws” hides danger.
Juxtaposition 🔪	Contrasting ideas placed side-by-side.	Friendly smile vs. lethal predator
Metaphor 🌉	Implied comparison without “like” or “as.”	Crocodile = deceitful host
Oxymoron ⚡🙂	Two opposing ideas combined.	“Gently smiling jaws”
Parody 🌀	A humorous imitation of another work.	Mimics Isaac Watts’ moral poem style
Personification 🐊	Giving human traits to animals or objects.	“He seems to grin,” “spreads his claws”
Rhyme 🎶	Matching sounds at line ends.	“Tail / Scale,” “Claws / Jaws”
Rhythm 🥁	Pattern of syllables (meter).	Mostly iambic, flowing rhythm
Satire 🎭	Use of wit to criticize norms or ideas.	Mocks moralistic Victorian poetry
Symbolism 🌟	Use of objects to convey deeper meaning.	“Golden scale” = deceptive beauty
Tone 🎵	The poem’s mood or narrator’s attitude.	Cheerful, whimsical, yet sinister
Visual Contrast 👁️‍🗨️	Vivid opposites in imagery.	Smile and spread claws welcoming prey

Themes: “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

🐊 Theme 1: Deception and Disguise – “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

Deception is a central and playful theme in “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll, cleverly wrapped in charming language and whimsical tone. At first glance, the crocodile is presented as an elegant creature: “How doth the little crocodile / Improve his shining tail.” This refined image sets a misleading tone, making the reader believe the crocodile is harmless, even admirable. However, the poem gradually reveals that this polished exterior hides something more sinister. Lines like “How cheerfully he seems to grin” and “With gently smiling jaws” expose how the crocodile uses friendly appearance as a trap to lure unsuspecting fish. The poem’s language masks predatory behavior under a veil of politeness, revealing the gap between appearance and reality. By combining cheerful diction with underlying menace, Carroll masterfully demonstrates how easily charm can be used to deceive. This theme invites readers to question surface appearances and consider the danger that often lies beneath a smile.

🦴 Theme 2: Predation and Survival – “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

“The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll subtly explores the brutal realities of nature, particularly the theme of predation as a necessary mechanism for survival. Beneath the poem’s light-hearted rhythm lies a depiction of a deadly encounter between predator and prey. The crocodile, described as “welcoming little fishes in / With gently smiling jaws,” illustrates how predatory behavior can be cloaked in elegance. The word “welcomes” is deliberately misleading—it transforms the act of hunting into something almost hospitable. This ironic framing highlights how nature operates without sentiment, relying on instinct and strategy. Carroll’s use of gentle and refined language does not erase the underlying violence but rather emphasizes the sophistication of survival in the animal world. The crocodile’s deceptive grace isn’t evil—it’s efficient. Through this lens, the poem reflects on the idea that survival often requires charm, concealment, and timing, presenting predation not as cruelty but as an unavoidable part of life’s order.

🎭 Theme 3: Satire of Moral Instruction – “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

“The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll is a witty and ironic parody of the moralistic poetry popular in the 19th century, particularly works like Isaac Watts’ “Against Idleness and Mischief.” Whereas Watts promotes industrious behavior using a hard-working bee as a moral example, Carroll humorously subverts this by presenting a crocodile—a predator—as the subject. Instead of encouraging virtue, the crocodile is celebrated for its charm and ability to deceive. The poem’s structure, rhythm, and language all mimic traditional didactic verse, but its content flips the message entirely. This playful contradiction serves as satire, poking fun at the overly rigid and formulaic lessons imposed on children through verse. By making the crocodile’s deadly smile the focus of admiration, Carroll critiques the shallow effectiveness of moral instruction that values surface behavior over deeper insight. The poem exposes how easy it is to dress danger in the language of virtue, suggesting that true morality is more complex than a tidy rhyme.

🐍 Theme 4: The Illusion of Civility – “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

Another powerful theme in “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll is the illusion of civility—the idea that polite appearances can hide darker intentions. Carroll paints the crocodile as an elegant figure, using phrases like “improve his shining tail” and “neatly spreads his claws” to give it a sense of refinement. Even the phrase “gently smiling jaws” suggests gentleness rather than threat. Yet, these very jaws are what consume the “little fishes.” The poem thus creates a disturbing contrast between form and function: the creature appears graceful and benign, but its purpose remains deadly. Carroll’s clever use of courtly and civil language to describe violent natural behavior serves as a commentary on how appearances, especially those shaped by social norms, can be deceptive. Just as the crocodile masks its intentions behind a smile, so too can people mask selfish or harmful actions behind good manners and charm. The theme warns readers not to equate civility with goodness, for danger can wear a pleasant face.

Literary Theories and “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

📚 Theory	🔍 Application to “The Crocodile”	✍️ Reference from Poem
🌀 Structuralism	Focuses on how the poem mirrors and subverts common literary structures—in this case, the traditional moralistic children’s poem. Carroll follows the rhyme and rhythm of didactic verse, only to ironically twist its meaning.	Mimics the structure of Isaac Watts’ poem: “How doth the little crocodile / Improve his shining tail…”
🎭 Psychoanalytic Theory	Interprets the crocodile’s grin and refined behavior as a manifestation of the ego masking primal desires. The crocodile’s charm hides its instinctual, destructive id—suggesting a Freudian tension between surface behavior and deeper drives.	“How cheerfully he seems to grin… / And welcomes little fishes in”
🧩 Post-Structuralism / Deconstruction	Questions the reliability of language and appearance. Words like “welcomes,” “gently,” and “cheerfully” are destabilized by their context, as they describe a predator. This shows how language can be manipulated to conceal truth.	“With gently smiling jaws” – smile = charm or threat?
🐍 Marxist Theory	Reads the crocodile as a symbol of the ruling class: deceptive, polished, and feeding off the innocent (“little fishes”). The imagery of “golden scale” and refined action mirrors elite aesthetics masking exploitation.	“And pour the waters of the Nile / On every golden scale”

Critical Questions about “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

❓🌀 1. How does “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll use parody to subvert traditional moral poetry?

Lewis Carroll cleverly employs parody in “The Crocodile” to dismantle the seriousness and didacticism of traditional Victorian moral verse. The poem mimics the form and meter of Isaac Watts’ well-known poem Against Idleness and Mischief, which praises industriousness through the example of a hardworking bee. Carroll replaces the bee with a grinning crocodile—a starkly inappropriate moral figure—to humorously twist the intended lesson. Lines like “How cheerfully he seems to grin” and “With gently smiling jaws” lend an absurd innocence to a predatory creature, highlighting the poem’s playful inversion of expectation. This approach mocks the mechanical delivery of moral lessons to children, suggesting that rigid moral instruction can be superficial and easily parodied. The light-hearted parody also allows Carroll to critique the notion that outward behavior automatically reflects inner virtue—a theme that gives the poem lasting relevance.

❓🐊 2. In what ways does “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll explore the contrast between appearance and reality?

A major thematic focus of “The Crocodile” lies in its vivid exploration of appearance versus reality. The crocodile is portrayed with appealing and graceful imagery—“Improve his shining tail,” “On every golden scale,” and “With gently smiling jaws.” These elegant visuals suggest harmlessness, even charm. However, the true intent of the creature is revealed in the action: it “welcomes little fishes in,” not to nurture them, but to consume them. The contradiction between the creature’s polished, inviting appearance and its predatory behavior serves as a critique of how deceptive external beauty can be. Carroll uses irony to expose how language and image can mask the true nature of a character, reminding readers that reality often lurks beneath the surface. The crocodile becomes a metaphor for individuals or institutions that hide harmful motives behind pleasing exteriors.

❓🎭 3. What role does irony play in shaping the tone and message of “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll?

Irony is the engine driving both the tone and thematic substance of “The Crocodile”. Carroll constructs a poetic voice that is playful, cheerful, and almost admiring, using phrases like “How cheerfully he seems to grin” and “neatly spreads his claws.” This seemingly affectionate tone clashes with the grim reality that the crocodile is preparing to eat the fish it “welcomes.” The final image—“gently smiling jaws”—is especially rich in irony, as it implies kindness where there is danger. This juxtaposition creates a comic yet unsettling atmosphere, emphasizing the theme of deceptive appearances. The use of irony not only injects humor into the poem but also deepens its commentary on moral ambiguity and the unreliability of external charm. Carroll’s mastery of irony allows him to communicate complex critiques in a deceptively simple format.

❓🐍 4. How might “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll be interpreted as a social or political allegory?

Though whimsical on the surface, “The Crocodile” can be read as a subtle social allegory critiquing power dynamics and exploitation. The crocodile, dressed in elegance—“golden scale,” “shining tail”—resembles a figure of authority or high status. Meanwhile, the “little fishes” symbolize the innocent or powerless who are drawn in by charm and ultimately consumed. The line “welcomes little fishes in” suggests an illusion of hospitality, masking a predatory agenda. This image reflects how those in power often use civility, charisma, or aesthetics to disguise exploitative intentions. The crocodile’s charm is not genuine kindness but a tool of manipulation. Carroll, with his background in academia and awareness of social structures, may be hinting at broader critiques of Victorian institutions that appeared noble but functioned to maintain control. The poem becomes a quiet allegory of polished oppression—beauty hiding danger, civility masking domination.

Literary Works Similar to “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

🐝 “Against Idleness and Mischief” by Isaac Watts
This moralistic children’s poem, famously parodied by Carroll, emphasizes hard work through the example of the industrious bee, contrasting sharply with the crocodile’s sly lethality.
➤ Similarity: Direct structural and thematic parody target.

🦊 “The Spider and the Fly” by Mary Howitt
A cautionary tale where a sly spider flatters a naïve fly to lure it into its web, much like the crocodile “welcomes little fishes in.”
➤ Similarity: Deceptive charm and predatory dialogue masked in civility.

🎭 “The Tyger” by William Blake
Explores the duality of beauty and danger, much like Carroll’s crocodile whose golden scales and smile hide lethal instincts.
➤ Similarity: Elegant exterior hiding primal violence.

🐍 “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson
Describes a snake with suspense and subtle danger, echoing the quiet threat behind the crocodile’s “gently smiling jaws.”
➤ Similarity: Nature’s creatures portrayed with deceptive calm and hidden menace.

🎩 “Macavity: The Mystery Cat” by T.S. Eliot
A whimsical poem featuring a cunning and elusive cat, mixing charm with mischief, echoing the tone and deceptive elegance of Carroll’s crocodile.
➤ Similarity: Anthropomorphized predator with a playful yet sly persona.

Representative Quotations of “The Crocodile” by Lewis Carroll

📝 Quotation	📍 Context	🧠 Explanation	📚 Theoretical Perspective
“How doth the little crocodile” 🐊	Opening line; mimics moralistic poetry tone	Sets up a parody of Isaac Watts’ poem, using formal diction to introduce an unexpected predator	Structuralism – mimics form while subverting content
“Improve his shining tail” ✨	Describes crocodile’s appearance	Suggests vanity and the effort to appear appealing, hinting at underlying deception	Psychoanalytic Theory – outer ego disguising inner id
“And pour the waters of the Nile” 🌊	Continues the crocodile’s self-care routine	Exaggerates setting to emphasize elegance and grandeur	Post-Structuralism – deconstructs natural beauty as performative
“On every golden scale” 🌟	Completes image of the refined crocodile	“Golden” symbolizes wealth and attraction, used to mask danger	Marxist Theory – wealth/polish used to attract and dominate
“How cheerfully he seems to grin” 😄	Shift from physical description to expression	Emphasizes a misleading, friendly demeanor that conceals intent	Irony and Deconstruction – disconnect between appearance and motive
“How neatly spreads his claws” 🐾	Further anthropomorphizing action	“Neatly” presents violence with elegance, twisting predatory imagery	Feminist Theory (optional) – critique of aestheticizing control/domination
“And welcomes little fishes in” 🐟	Turning point in the poem	A mock invitation into danger; predator framed as host	Satirical Theory – critiques hospitality masking exploitation
“With gently smiling jaws” 🙂	Final ironic image	Contradiction between “gently” and lethal action heightens the poem’s irony	Psychoanalytic + Irony Theory – danger hiding behind false civility
“Little fishes” 🐠	Victims of the crocodile	Symbolizes innocence or naïveté easily manipulated by charm	Reader-Response Theory – readers interpret “fishes” as vulnerable audience
“Shining tail… golden scale… smiling jaws” 💎	Repeated use of visual details	Pattern of visual deception—beauty masking danger	Symbolism Theory – external polish representing concealed threat

“Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt: Summary and Critique

“Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt first appeared in Postdigital Science and Education in 2019.

Introduction: “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt

“Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt first appeared in Postdigital Science and Education in 2019. This article serves as a significant contribution to contemporary discourse on epistemology, ethics, and the political stakes of truth in a “post-truth” era. Drawing on thinkers like Frankfurt (2006) and Williams (2002), the authors distinguish between lies, bullshit, and truth, arguing that truth possesses both intrinsic and instrumental value—central to individual integrity, institutional legitimacy, and democratic function. They demonstrate how the Brexit crisis exemplifies the toxic interplay of disinformation, political propaganda, and the erosion of public trust. Drawing connections with Orwell’s reflections on propaganda, they warn against the normalization of deceit in public life and emphasize the critical role of education in cultivating truth-seeking dispositions in an increasingly fragmented digital information ecosystem. The article contributes to literary theory and cultural studies by interrogating how narratives—political, historical, or personal—are shaped by competing truth claims, revealing the ideological undercurrents that govern meaning-making in a postdigital age. Ultimately, MacKenzie and Bhatt’s work asserts the indispensable role of truthfulness as both an ethical ideal and a precondition for meaningful discourse, resisting relativist tendencies that reduce all truths to perspective.

Summary of “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt

🧠 Truth as Intrinsic and Instrumental Value

“Truth has considerable intrinsic and instrumental value that should be protected and respected” (MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 1).
Truth is not only useful for practical decision-making but also essential for democratic life, institutional legitimacy, and personal integrity.

📉 The Post-Truth Era Undermines Democracy

“‘Post-truth’ politics poses a serious challenge to the values of truth, and consequently trust” (p. 1).
“Brexit is one of the greatest victories… by the forces of illiberal authoritarianism” (Dougan & O’Brien, 2019, p. 203).
Misinformation, fantasy, and scapegoating used during Brexit expose a broader erosion of democratic principles.

📱 Digital Information Ecosystem Amplifies Falsehoods

“Our often unwitting reliance on algorithms to curate our newsfeeds can also be problematic” (p. 3).
“Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 63).
The postdigital condition accelerates the spread of lies and bullshit via social media, aided by platform algorithms.

🧩 Distinguishing Lies, Bullshit, and Truth

“The liar intends… to deceive… The bullshitter… is not guided by the authority of truth” (Frankfurt, 2005, pp. 51–54).
“Lies… pollute personal and public life, and place a limit on what we can effectively and reasonably do” (p. 3).
While lies are intentional deceptions, bullshit is indifferent to truth altogether—yet both are corrosive to public discourse.

🧪 The Epistemological Foundations of Truth

“Rather than formally engaging in a precise account of what truth means… it entails qualities such as ‘sincerity’, ‘accuracy’, ‘trust’” (p. 4).
“We need the right reasons to believe that something is true… respect for facts, for accuracy, and for honest, objective reporting” (p. 5).
Truth is difficult to define, but foundational to epistemology. The article supports a pragmatic, fact-responsive approach.

🧱 Erosion of Trust in Experts and Institutions

“We are being asked to distrust the authority of experts to speak on issues about which they know a great deal” (p. 6).
“Michael Gove… ‘we have had enough of experts’” (cited in MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 6).
Political rhetoric has dangerously devalued expertise, fostering suspicion and intellectual relativism.

⚖️ Ethics of Lying and the Moral Demand for Truthfulness

“When we lie, we intentionally deceive by stating something we know to be untrue” (Bok, 1989, p. 12).
“To deny obvious facts is to succumb to irrationality” (MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 8).
The ethical domain demands that we respect truthfulness. Lying damages both interpersonal and societal trust.

🔍 Truth vs. Relativism and Subjective Narratives

“What marks something as a truth… is that a truth embodies facts and value judgements” (p. 10).
“Truth… is not mysterious… We know what it means to seek and state the truth” (Williams, 2002, cited on p. 4).
The authors reject extreme relativism. While interpretation is inevitable, there are still standards for verifying truth.

🧱 Historical Manipulation as a Tool of Power

“Orwell was alarmed that the reporting… was not only factually wrong, it was intentionally wrong” (p. 12).
“The lie would become truth” (Orwell, 1968, p. 258).
Using Orwell’s fears, the article warns against the rewriting of history and how manipulated truths can become dominant narratives.

🧭 The Role of Education and Reflexivity

“Educators have a vital role to play in helping an informed public navigate what it encounters online” (p. 13).
“We must continue to advance knowledge and understanding, as truthfully, critically and rigorously as we possibly can” (p. 14).
Educators must not only teach critical literacy but also model truthfulness, resilience, and reflexive inquiry in the postdigital age.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt

📘 Theoretical Term / Concept	📖 Definition / Explanation	📎 In-Text Reference / Citation
🎭 Post-Truth	A sociopolitical condition where appeals to emotion and belief override objective facts.	“‘Post-truth’ politics poses a serious challenge to the values of truth, and consequently trust” (MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 1).
💩 Bullshit (Frankfurt)	Discourse produced without concern for truth; not necessarily a lie but reflects disregard for factual accuracy.	“The bullshitter… is not guided by the authority of truth” (Frankfurt, 2005, cited in MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 3).
🤥 Lie	An intentional falsehood told to deceive others, distinct from bullshit by its deliberate aim to mislead.	“When we lie, we intentionally deceive by stating something we know to be untrue” (Bok, 1989, p. 12).
📊 Epistemology	The branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge—its nature, sources, and justification.	“We need the right reasons to believe that something is true” (MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 5).
🔍 Sincerity/Accuracy/Trust (Williams)	Williams’ components of truthfulness, emphasizing moral and communicative commitments.	“Truth entails qualities such as ‘sincerity’, ‘accuracy’, ‘trust’” (p. 4).
⚙️ Postdigital	A condition where digital tools are embedded in everyday life, shaping information, perception, and knowledge flows.	“Postdigital technologies… create and propagate bullshit and lies” (p. 2).
🧠 Reflexivity	A critical stance toward one’s beliefs, values, and digital information environments; a key educational aim.	“We must become critically reflexive of the postdigital knowledge ecologies we inhabit” (p. 14).
🗳️ Democratic Integrity	The foundational role of truth in enabling democratic deliberation, legitimacy, and public reasoning.	“Truth… is an essential good for citizens and the practice of politics and democracy” (p. 1).
🧱 Erosion of Expertise	The cultural devaluation of professional and expert knowledge, often replaced with populist rhetoric.	“We are being asked to distrust the authority of experts” (p. 6).
🛡️ Truthfulness (Ethical Ideal)	A virtue of honesty, accuracy, and sincerity; a moral requirement for ethical discourse and public trust.	“Truthfulness is a virtue… a basic requirement of political and ethical life” (Williams, 2002, cited on p. 4).

Contribution of “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt to Literary Theory/Theories

📚 Narrative Theory: Reconstructing Truth in Competing Storyworlds

“Narratives that make up Brexit, for example, were animated by disinformation, scapegoating, fantasy and blame” (MacKenzie & Bhatt, 2019, p. 1).
The article contributes to narrative theory by showing how false narratives in political discourse (e.g. Brexit) are structured and deployed. It reveals how truth and lies function as narrative strategies, constructing competing “realities” for ideological purposes.

🧠 Epistemological Criticism: Truth, Knowledge, and Textual Authority

“Rather than formally engaging in a precise account of what truth means… we follow Williams… who argues for sincerity, accuracy and trust” (p. 4).
The work adds to epistemological literary criticism by arguing for a moral and structural need for truth in interpretation, pushing back against radical textual relativism. It affirms that not all interpretations are equally valid, especially in politically charged narratives.

🕵️ Ideology Critique: Language, Power, and Manipulation

“Post-truth… has created a toxic brew of fantasy, denial, and propaganda” (p. 1).
“Orwell was alarmed… that the reporting of events was intentionally wrong and that the lie would become truth” (p. 12).
Aligning with Marxist and ideological criticism, the article shows how language is weaponized to distort reality, normalize deceit, and consolidate political power. The invocation of Orwell strengthens the critique of hegemonic discourse.

🗣️ Discourse Theory: Postdigital Communication and the Production of Meaning

“The postdigital is already here… We rely on algorithms to curate our newsfeeds” (p. 3).
The article expands discourse theory by exploring how truth claims are now formed within digitally mediated discourses, shaped by platforms, algorithms, and echo chambers. This advances literary theory’s understanding of contextualized meaning-making.

📺 Media Theory: Intersections of Text, Truth, and Technology

“Fake news is not only a symptom of failing democracies, it is also a digital affordance of post-truth politics” (p. 2).
The work enriches media and cultural theory by framing fake news as a media-textual phenomenon, produced and consumed within specific postdigital infrastructures—inviting literary scholars to treat digital texts as critical objects of study.

🧱 Ethical Criticism: Moral Responsibilities of the Writer and Reader

“Truthfulness is a virtue, a basic requirement of political and ethical life” (p. 4).
The authors reassert the place of ethical literary criticism, urging scholars and educators to reclaim the value of truth as a narrative and pedagogical commitment—countering postmodern tendencies to view all texts as equally valid expressions.

📖 Historiographic Metafiction: Fictionalizing the Past

“The past was whatever the Party chose to make it… the lie would become truth” (Orwell, 1968, cited p. 12).
The article indirectly contributes to historiographic metafiction theory by analyzing how history is re-narrated in the image of political interests—blurring fact and fiction in ways that resonate with postmodern literary concerns.

🎭 Poststructuralism: The Limits of Relativism

“Not all truths are created equal… truth and trust are necessary if we are to live with others peacefully” (p. 13).
While engaging with poststructuralist debates on truth and meaning, the authors push back against total relativism, reinforcing that language may be unstable, but ethical and factual constraints still matter in interpretive acts.

Examples of Critiques Through “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt

📖 Literary Work	🧠 Critique Through MacKenzie & Bhatt’s Framework	📎 Connection to Article Concepts
🕶️ 1984 by George Orwell	Orwell’s dystopia illustrates institutionalized lying, where the manipulation of facts leads to the erasure of truth itself. The Party rewrites history, echoing MacKenzie & Bhatt’s concern that “the lie would become truth.”	“The past was whatever the Party chose to make it… the lie would become truth” (p. 12); aligns with the dangers of propaganda, disinformation, and epistemic manipulation.
🗣️ The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood	Atwood’s regime depends on suppressing truth, rewriting religious doctrine, and controlling memory—forms of “bullshit” indifferent to factual integrity, matching Frankfurt’s notion discussed in the article.	Connects to the authors’ idea that “truthfulness is a virtue… a basic requirement of political and ethical life” (p. 4), and their concern with post-truth authority.
🧵 Life of Pi by Yann Martel	Pi offers two versions of his story—one magical, one brutal—raising questions about truth, belief, and narrative reliability. Through the lens of MacKenzie & Bhatt, this duality reflects how narrative can serve emotional or ideological purposes in post-truth settings.	Tied to their concern that “narratives… animated by disinformation, scapegoating, fantasy and blame” (p. 1) become dominant—even when unverifiable.
📺 White Noise by Don DeLillo	The novel critiques media saturation, misinformation, and the erosion of meaning in a consumerist society—what MacKenzie & Bhatt call a “toxic brew of fantasy, denial, and propaganda.”	Mirrors the article’s view that “postdigital technologies… create and propagate bullshit and lies” (p. 2) and foster epistemic instability.

Criticism Against “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt

⚖️ Moral Absolutism: Oversimplifying Complex Epistemologies

The article leans toward a morally absolutist view of truth, potentially dismissing nuanced postmodern and poststructuralist arguments that truth is socially constructed and contingent.

While aiming to defend truth, the authors risk ignoring the productive ambiguity that drives much of literary, philosophical, and cultural theory.

🧭 Lack of Engagement with Opposing Philosophical Theories

The article references Frankfurt and Williams approvingly but largely ignores or glosses over counter-theories, such as Foucault’s or Derrida’s critiques of power-knowledge and truth regimes.
This weakens the academic depth of the argument by not grappling with the full spectrum of truth-related discourse.

🕹️ Technological Determinism: Blaming the Medium, Not the Message

The authors tend to frame digital technologies as key enablers of lies and bullshit, which could be criticized as technologically deterministic.

Social media algorithms are not inherently deceptive; it is their usage and regulation that matters.

🧱 Binary Framing of Truth vs. Falsehood

The article adopts a binary opposition—truth vs. lies/bullshit—which may not capture the messy, contested space of political and literary truth-claims.

Truth can exist in gradations, provisional forms, or culturally embedded frames, which the article does not fully acknowledge.

📉 Limited Empirical Support for Claims

Although rhetorically persuasive, the article lacks empirical evidence to support broad statements (e.g., on Brexit, public trust, digital epistemologies).

Critics may argue that the authors’ claims are more philosophical than data-driven, which limits practical applicability.

🧠 Underexploration of Emotional Truths and Lived Experience

The emphasis on factual truth could be critiqued for excluding the legitimacy of emotional or experiential truths, especially in marginalized communities.

Not all truths can be empirically validated; affective and subjective dimensions of truth deserve recognition in postdigital societies.

📚 Educational Overreach: Idealism over Realism

While calling on educators to model truthfulness is inspiring, some may argue the authors place too much burden on education to counter systemic propaganda, without addressing broader political or economic reforms.

🔁 Circular Justification of Truth’s Value

The article sometimes asserts that truth is valuable because democracy needs it—without fully justifying why democracy should be the benchmark system.

This can be seen as circular reasoning: democracy needs truth, therefore truth is good.

Representative Quotations from “Opposing the Power of Lies, Bullshit and Fake News: the Value of Truth” by Alison MacKenzie and Ibrar Bhatt with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	🧠 Explanation
1. “‘Post-truth’ politics poses a serious challenge to the values of truth, and consequently trust.” (p. 1)	This sets the tone for the article, highlighting how public discourse is eroding due to emotional appeals replacing factual truth.
2. “Truth has considerable intrinsic and instrumental value that should be protected and respected.” (p. 1)	This assertion reflects the authors’ moral and philosophical stance: truth is both ethically necessary and practically useful.
3. “Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.” (Frankfurt, 2005, cited p. 3)	This quote from Frankfurt introduces a critical distinction between lying and bullshitting—central to the article’s theoretical framing.
4. “Lies and bullshit pollute personal and public life, and place a limit on what we can effectively and reasonably do.” (p. 3)	The authors connect the decline of truth to real-world consequences: limited decision-making, erosion of trust, and societal dysfunction.
5. “Truthfulness is a virtue… a basic requirement of political and ethical life.” (Williams, 2002, cited p. 4)	This quotation underscores the ethical foundation of the article, where truthfulness is not just factual accuracy, but a moral practice.
6. “We are being asked to distrust the authority of experts to speak on issues about which they know a great deal.” (p. 6)	Here, the authors criticize anti-intellectualism and the erosion of epistemic authority in post-truth political discourse.
7. “The past was whatever the Party chose to make it… the lie would become truth.” (Orwell, 1968, cited p. 12)	Referencing Orwell, this illustrates the dangers of institutionalized deception and historical revisionism—core concerns of the article.
8. “Truth is not mysterious… we know what it means to seek and state the truth.” (Williams, 2002, cited p. 4)	This rebuts extreme relativism and affirms a pragmatic understanding of truth-seeking as an everyday and attainable process.
9. “Educators have a vital role to play in helping an informed public navigate what it encounters online.” (p. 13)	The article calls on education as a solution—teachers must foster critical thinking and digital reflexivity in a post-truth age.
10. “We must continue to advance knowledge and understanding, as truthfully, critically and rigorously as we possibly can.” (p. 14)	This conclusion emphasizes an ongoing ethical and intellectual commitment to truth, especially within academic and civic life.

“Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson: Summary and Critique

“Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson first appeared in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume XXXII (2008).

Introduction: “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson

“Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson first appeared in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume XXXII (2008). This paper offers a rigorous philosophical engagement with Harry Frankfurt’s influential arguments in On Truth (2006) and On Bullshit (2005), especially as they pertain to epistemology and the instrumental value of truth. Olsson affirms Frankfurt’s defense of objective truth against relativist postmodern stances, emphasizing that even those denying truth must do so truthfully, exposing a performative contradiction in relativism. The central idea is that truth is practically indispensable: for survival, planning, decision-making, and moral reasoning. Yet Olsson expands Frankfurt’s discussion by confronting what epistemologists call the “Meno problem”—why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief—through a reliabilist framework. He argues that while Frankfurt collapses the distinction between knowing and simply believing truths, epistemic theory must explain why knowledge offers more stable, reproducible, and action-oriented cognitive advantages. In addressing Frankfurt’s view of “bullshit”—speech indifferent to truth—Olsson identifies a deeper puzzle: how a truth-dependent society can flourish amidst rampant misinformation. Drawing on social epistemology, especially Hegselmann and Krause’s models, Olsson shows that communal convergence on truth is still possible even with widespread deception, so long as a minority of reliable agents influence the social belief network. The article’s importance lies in bridging analytic epistemology, Frankfurt’s moral philosophy, and social theory, thereby enriching discussions in literary and cultural theory where skepticism about truth has long held sway.

Summary of “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson

🔍 Truth as Instrumentally Valuable

✅ Frankfurt champions the objective distinction between truth and falsehood, rejecting postmodern relativism: even denying truth presupposes it (Olsson, 2008, p. 94).
🛠️ Truth is practically necessary for making everyday decisions—about health, engineering, and relationships—because it helps us “negotiate… the thicket of hazards” (Frankfurt, 2006, as cited in Olsson, 2008, p. 95).

💡 “Truth… possesses very considerable practical utility” (OT, 15; as cited in Olsson, 2008, p. 94).

🧠 Confusion Between Truth and Knowledge

🤔 Frankfurt slides between valuing truth and valuing knowledge, treating them almost synonymously without clarifying the difference (Olsson, 2008, p. 95).
🧭 This lack of precision raises epistemological issues, particularly when addressing the value of knowledge beyond mere true belief (Olsson, 2008, p. 95).

📜 Revisiting Plato’s Meno Problem

🚶‍♂️ Using Plato’s example of a traveler to Larissa, Olsson argues that even non-knowledgeable true belief can be practically helpful (Olsson, 2008, p. 96).
🎯 Thus, truth—even when not constituting knowledge—can have instrumental value: “We have reason, then, to love truth in general, not just to love knowledge” (Olsson, 2008, p. 96).

🔁 Reliabilist Solution to the Value of Knowledge

🧪 Olsson proposes a reliabilist theory: knowledge is true belief formed via a reliable method (Olsson, 2008, p. 97).

☕ Against Zagzebski’s espresso analogy, he argues that reliability matters, because a reliable method tends to reproduce true beliefs over time (Olsson, 2008, pp. 97–98).
🔄 “Knowledge will tend to multiply”—you get more truth when your methods are sound (Olsson, 2008, p. 98).

🧷 Knowledge as Stable and Action-Ready

📌 True beliefs that qualify as knowledge are more stable and therefore more useful for long-term planning (Olsson, 2008, p. 99).

🛠️ Olsson formulates:
- SAT – Stability Action Thesis: stable beliefs aid in successful action.
- RST – Reliability Stability Thesis: reliable acquisition promotes belief stability.
- → Conclusion: knowledge > true belief in instrumental terms (Olsson, 2008, pp. 99–100).

⚖️ Truth Is Normally, Not Always, Valuable

🔄 Frankfurt acknowledges exceptions: sometimes truth-telling is harmful, such as when a lie prevents self-destructive behavior (Olsson, 2008, p. 101).
🤝 Still, truth is normally valuable in a defeasible way: “This is true” → “This is valuable,” unless exceptional conditions apply (Olsson, 2008, p. 101).

🤯 Frankfurt’s Puzzle: A Prosperous Society Full of Bullshit?

📉 Frankfurt warns: bullshit—disregard for truth—is a deeper threat than lying because it erodes one’s capacity to engage with reality (Olsson, 2008, pp. 102–103).
🧱 But this leads to a paradox: how can our society flourish despite being saturated with bullshit? (Olsson, 2008, p. 103).
❗ Frankfurt offers a contradictory answer: first claims we detect bullshit well (OT, 72), then admits we’re “rather easily fooled” (OT, 73; as cited in Olsson, 2008, p. 104).

🌐 Social Epistemology to the Rescue

🤝 Olsson proposes a model based on Hegselmann & Krause (2006): a society can reach the truth even if only some individuals are reliable (Olsson, 2008, p. 106).
🧬 Bullshitters can be indirectly connected to the truth via social mechanisms like opinion averaging (Olsson, 2008, pp. 107–108).
⚖️ Truth seekers exert influence across social networks, enabling society to approximate truth collectively without everyone being epistemically virtuous (Olsson, 2008, p. 109).

🧩 Final Insight: Society Can Survive Bullshit

🛡️ Even in the presence of widespread deception, convergence on truth remains possible—not through perfect detection, but through socially structured epistemic exchange.
💬 “Pace Frankfurt, communal convergence on the truth does not require… [ability] to discriminate… deception” (Olsson, 2008, p. 109).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson

Concept	Explanation	Quotation
Instrumental Value of Truth	Truth is practically useful—it helps people survive, make plans, and function effectively in the world. Olsson emphasizes this as Frankfurt’s central thesis.	“Truth often possesses very considerable practical utility… one cannot live effectively without it” (Olsson, 2008, p. 94).
Objective vs. Relative Truth	Frankfurt rejects relativism and insists that truth corresponds to reality. Denying objective truth is incoherent since denial itself presupposes truth.	“To reject the distinction between truth and falsity is… to reject the idea that there is a way things are” (Olsson, 2008, p. 94).
True Belief vs. Knowledge	Olsson distinguishes true belief from knowledge, a step Frankfurt overlooks. He argues that even unverified true beliefs can still be instrumentally valuable.	“We have reason, then, to love truth in general, not just to love knowledge” (Olsson, 2008, p. 96).
Meno Problem	A classical epistemological issue: why is knowledge more valuable than mere true belief? Olsson revisits this through Frankfurt’s examples.	“Plato was worried about how knowledge can be more valuable than mere true belief” (Olsson, 2008, p. 96).
Reliabilism	The view that knowledge consists of reliably produced true beliefs. This epistemological theory answers the Meno problem by emphasizing method.	“Reliabilism… holds that knowledge is reliably produced true belief” (Olsson, 2008, p. 97).
Zagzebski’s Espresso Objection	A critique of reliabilism: adding justification to true belief doesn’t always increase value—just like adding poison to espresso doesn’t improve it.	“Adding justification to a true belief does not make it more valuable, any more than adding a drop of cyanide improves an espresso” (Olsson, 2008, p. 97).
Stability Action Thesis (SAT)	Knowledge promotes more stable beliefs, which are more useful for planning and consistent action over time.	“Reliably formed true beliefs are… less likely to be discarded… making them more useful for long-term planning” (Olsson, 2008, p. 99).
Reliability Stability Thesis (RST)	Beliefs formed via reliable processes are more likely to persist, making them more valuable than randomly true beliefs.	“Beliefs formed via a reliable process are more likely to remain stable in the face of new evidence” (Olsson, 2008, p. 100).
Bullshit (Frankfurt)	Unlike lies, bullshit is indifferent to truth. Frankfurt views it as a greater epistemic threat since it erodes the value of truth itself.	“Bullshit is speech aimed at manipulation without regard for the truth” (Olsson, 2008, p. 102).
Paradox of Bullshit Society	Frankfurt suggests we live in a world full of bullshit—yet society still functions well. This raises a paradox Olsson seeks to resolve.	“Our society, by and large, is flourishing. How can this be, given the widespread presence of bullshit?” (Olsson, 2008, p. 103).
Social Epistemology	The study of knowledge in group settings. Olsson applies this to explain how societies can still reach truth collectively.	“Even if most people are not truth seekers, truth may still win out if enough people are” (Olsson, 2008, p. 106).
Hegselmann–Krause Opinion Dynamics	A model showing how a small number of truth-seekers can influence entire groups through structured communication.	“The model shows that convergence toward the truth is possible under fairly weak conditions” (Olsson, 2008, p. 106).

Contribution of “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postmodernism & Truth-Relativism

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: Offers a robust defense of objective truth, directly countering the postmodernist tendency toward relativism and epistemic skepticism.

💬 Quote: “To reject the distinction between truth and falsity is… to reject the idea that there is a way things are” (Olsson, 2008, p. 94).
📚 Relevance: Challenges postmodern literary theorists (e.g., Lyotard, Baudrillard) who argue that truth is socially constructed or linguistically contingent.
🧠 Theoretical Impact: Encourages literary theory to re-evaluate the ontological status of meaning and interpretation, suggesting not all textual claims are equally valid.

🧠 2. Epistemic Critique in Reader-Response Theory

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: Emphasizes the importance of reliable knowledge processes in distinguishing valid interpretation from subjective reaction.
💬 Quote: “Reliabilism… holds that knowledge is reliably produced true belief” (Olsson, 2008, p. 97).
📚 Relevance: Adds an epistemological framework to debates within reader-response theory by foregrounding the processes by which interpretations are validated, not just the interpretations themselves.

💣 3. Frankfurt’s Bullshit Concept in Cultural Criticism

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: Deepens Frankfurt’s idea of “bullshit” as a mode of communication that erodes epistemic standards—relevant to media studies and literary discourse.
💬 Quote: “Bullshit is speech aimed at manipulation without regard for the truth” (Olsson, 2008, p. 102).
📚 Relevance: Speaks directly to cultural studies and critical discourse analysis, exposing how discourse divorced from truth (e.g., advertising, propaganda, bad-faith literary critique) undermines genuine understanding.

🧩 4. The Paradox of Interpretation in Deconstruction

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: Challenges the deconstructive claim that meaning is endlessly deferred and truth inaccessible, by showing that truth is practically indispensable.
💬 Quote: “Truth is normally instrumentally valuable, even if this is subject to exceptions” (Olsson, 2008, p. 101).
📚 Relevance: Calls into question the ethics of interpretation in deconstructive literary theory—suggesting that truth, while elusive, must remain an ethical ideal.

🔄 5. Ethical Criticism & Moral Value of Truth

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: Affirms Frankfurt’s moral vision that truth is a precondition for ethical life, suggesting that literature must engage responsibly with truth.
💬 Quote: “The individual who is indifferent to how things really are is, therefore, deeply deprived” (Olsson, 2008, p. 95).
📚 Relevance: Supports ethical literary criticism (e.g., Martha Nussbaum) by emphasizing how truthful orientation in literature contributes to moral knowledge and civic integrity.

🌐 6. Social Epistemology & Collective Meaning-Making

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: Uses social epistemology models to explain how truth persists in culture—even when bullshit is widespread—through networks of trust and influence.
💬 Quote: “Even if most people are not truth seekers, truth may still win out if enough people are” (Olsson, 2008, p. 106).
📚 Relevance: Provides a conceptual framework for literary publics, interpretive communities, and the role of the critic as a truth-seeker in meaning dissemination.

🔍 7. Relevance to Ideology Critique (Althusserian/Marxist Theories)

🔍 Olsson’s Contribution: While not Marxist, Olsson’s account of how bullshit perpetuates non-truths aligns with ideological state apparatuses that reproduce distorted social narratives.
💬 Quote: “The very possibility of a life guided by reason depends on… access to the truth” (Olsson, 2008, p. 94).
📚 Relevance: Resonates with ideology critique, suggesting that control over epistemic standards is a form of cultural power that can be analyzed in literature and media.

Examples of Critiques Through “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson

📖 Literary Work	🧠 Key Concepts from Olsson (2008)	🪞 Frankfurtian/Olssonian Literary Critique
🪞 1984 by George Orwell	🔹 Bullshit as Epistemic Indifference (pp. 102–103) 🔹 Social Epistemology & Networked Belief (pp. 106–109)	Orwell’s dystopia illustrates a regime thriving on bullshit—language that manipulates without regard for truth. The Party’s slogans (“War is Peace”) reflect Frankfurt’s idea of truth-indifferent discourse. Olsson’s social epistemology helps explain how such a society persists despite epistemic decay, showing how epistemic isolation prevents convergence on truth.
🎭 The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	🔹 Reliabilism & Epistemic Value (pp. 97–99) 🔹 Truth vs. Self-Deceptive Narratives (pp. 95–96)	Gatsby’s self-constructed myth embodies bullshit as lifestyle—he fabricates origins and wealth to win Daisy. Olsson’s argument that true belief must be reliably formed to be valuable exposes Gatsby’s illusions as epistemically unstable. His tragedy reveals the collapse of a world built on epistemic unreliability.
📺 White Noise by Don DeLillo	🔹 Collapse of Truth in Postmodernism (pp. 94–95) 🔹 Normal Instrumental Value of Truth (pp. 101–102)	The novel’s satirical take on media saturation and academic jargon echoes Frankfurt’s and Olsson’s concerns: in a society of simulations, truth loses social traction. DeLillo’s characters drift in a world where language no longer aims at truth—Olsson warns this leads to erosion of reasoned agency.
🧬 Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro	🔹 Truth and Ethical Autonomy (pp. 95–96) 🔹 Minority Truth-Seeking in Society (pp. 106–109)	The clones’ passive acceptance of fate represents a society structured on epistemic apathy. Frankfurt’s idea of bullshit as disengagement from truth and Olsson’s insight that autonomy depends on epistemic access reveal how silence and obedience prevent liberation. Only a few characters seek truth, reflecting Olsson’s theory that small epistemic minorities can’t always shift the collective.

Criticism Against “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson

❗ 1. Overreliance on Process Reliabilism

🔍 Critique: Olsson’s defense of reliabilism may overcommit to an externalist theory of knowledge that sidelines internal justification and epistemic agency.
🧠 Philosophers from the virtue epistemology or evidentialist camps might argue that Olsson reduces knowledge to mechanistic reliability, overlooking intellectual character and rational reflection.

🤔 2. Limited Engagement with Frankfurt’s Intent

📘 Critique: Frankfurt’s work is more moral-philosophical and rhetorical than epistemological. Critics may argue Olsson forcibly epistemologizes ideas that Frankfurt presented in a broader ethical-cultural frame.

🧾 Frankfurt does not attempt a theory of knowledge—so Olsson’s analytic extension, while illuminating, may misrepresent the scope of Frankfurt’s project.

🌀 3. Narrow Interpretation of Truth’s Value

⚖️ Critique: Olsson emphasizes the instrumental value of truth—what it does for us practically—but does not engage deeply with its intrinsic value (truth for its own sake), which is central to many moral, religious, and aesthetic philosophies.
🌟 This leaves open the critique that Olsson’s framework is overly pragmatic or utilitarian.

🌐 4. Idealized Model of Social Epistemology

🧮 Critique: Olsson’s use of the Hegselmann–Krause model relies on idealized assumptions about agents, rationality, and information sharing.
🔧 In real societies, communication is noisy, asymmetric, and power-laden—raising doubts about whether his mathematical optimism applies to real-world bullshit cultures.

📚 5. Lack of Literary, Rhetorical, or Discursive Analysis

🖋️ Critique: Though the article is cited in literary theory contexts, it does not itself engage with literary form, language, or rhetoric. Critics may find it too analytically dry or removed from cultural practice.

📘 Readers from critical theory or cultural studies traditions may feel the piece overlooks how language generates power, not just (mis)information.

🚫 6. Insufficient Response to Postmodernism

📉 Critique: While Olsson criticizes relativism, his engagement with postmodern theory is too brief and abstract. He does not cite or directly argue against thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, or Lyotard, whose views he implies are flawed.
📚 This may weaken the force of his critique, making it seem like a strawman of postmodernism rather than a robust rebuttal.

🧩 7. Fragmented Integration of Bullshit and Knowledge

🔗 Critique: The article attempts to weave together two of Frankfurt’s essays—On Truth and On Bullshit—but the thematic integration is uneven.
🧠 While the knowledge/truth section is tightly reasoned, the bullshit/social epistemology portion feels loosely attached, with a shift in tone and method.

Representative Quotations from “Knowledge, Truth, And Bullshit: Reflections On Frankfurt” by Erik J. Olsson with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	💡 Explanation
1. “Truth often possesses very considerable practical utility… one cannot live effectively without it.” (p. 94)	Olsson summarizes Frankfurt’s core claim that truth is not merely abstract or moral—it is instrumentally essential for survival, action, and decision-making.
2. “To reject the distinction between truth and falsity is… to reject the idea that there is a way things are.” (p. 94)	This quotation underlines the incoherence of truth relativism. Even denying truth presupposes its reality, making relativism self-undermining.
3. “We have reason, then, to love truth in general, not just to love knowledge.” (p. 96)	Olsson argues that true belief itself—not only knowledge—is instrumentally valuable. Truth enables effective action regardless of whether it’s justified.
4. “Reliabilism… holds that knowledge is reliably produced true belief.” (p. 97)	Olsson introduces his favored epistemological theory: reliabilism, which links knowledge not to internal awareness but to the reliability of belief-forming methods.
5. “Adding justification to a true belief does not make it more valuable, any more than adding a drop of cyanide improves an espresso.” (p. 97, citing Zagzebski)	This metaphor critiques reliabilism: if justification doesn’t enhance value, then why consider it essential? Olsson defends reliabilism against this challenge.
6. “Reliably formed true beliefs are… less likely to be discarded… making them more useful for long-term planning.” (p. 99)	Olsson introduces the Stability Action Thesis—that knowledge’s stability gives it a practical edge over mere belief.
7. “Truth is normally instrumentally valuable, even if this is subject to exceptions.” (p. 101)	Olsson qualifies his argument: while truth is generally valuable, there may be moral cases (e.g. white lies) where withholding it is justified.
8. “Bullshit is speech aimed at manipulation without regard for the truth.” (p. 102)	A concise restatement of Frankfurt’s thesis. The danger of bullshit lies not in its falsehood, but in its epistemic indifference.
9. “Our society, by and large, is flourishing. How can this be, given the widespread presence of bullshit?” (p. 103)	Olsson frames the paradox: if bullshit erodes truth, how does a society that tolerates it function? This question motivates his use of social epistemology.
10. “Even if most people are not truth seekers, truth may still win out if enough people are.” (p. 106)	Using Hegselmann–Krause models, Olsson suggests that minority epistemic virtue can still shape public knowledge—an optimistic view of truth resilience.