“Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

Table of Contents

“Disgusting Bullshit” by Jenny Rice first appeared in Rhetoric Society Quarterly in 2015 (Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 468–472). This short but incisive essay explores the rhetorical dimensions of “bullshit,” expanding on Harry Frankfurt’s influential definition to examine its broader consequences in public discourse. Rice reframes bullshit not merely as a lack of concern for truth, but as an active obstruction—a rhetorical blockage that stifles mutuality, dialogue, and response. Drawing analogies from earwax impaction to public health debates like anti-vaccination rhetoric, she argues that bullshit calcifies discourse in ways that prevent reciprocal understanding and critical engagement. The piece situates rhetorical blockage as a matter of ethical concern, moving beyond the philosophical preoccupation with truth to address how bullshit disables the “call and response” structure fundamental to rhetorical ethics. Influenced by theorists such as Julia Kristeva (on disgust), Sara Ahmed (on the politics of emotion), and Michael Hyde (on rhetorical conscience), Rice ultimately proposes that disgust itself might serve as a rhetorical tactic—a visceral refusal of the unacceptable. Her work is significant in literary and rhetorical theory for its innovative reframing of discourse ethics, especially in an era where emotional manipulation and strategic obfuscation increasingly shape public rhetoric.

Summary of “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

🧠 1. Bullshit as Disconnected from Belief

Frankfurt’s theory frames bullshit as “a lack of concern for truth” rather than lying (p. 468).
Bullshit is a rhetorical action focused on achieving a goal, not on expressing belief:

“For the bullshitter, what matters is whether or not his or her goal is accomplished” (p. 468).

Rice illustrates this through a student who writes “This answer is bullshit” as a quiz response—possibly bluffing, possibly rejecting the question’s premise (p. 468).

🧱 2. Bullshit as Rhetorical Blockage

Rice introduces the metaphor of blockage—bullshit congeals discourse, obstructing rhetorical flow.

Describes the anti-vaccine movement as an example of this blockage, where pro-vaccination messages paradoxically deepen resistance:

“Bullshit might also be imagined as a blockage… most relevant to those of us interested in discourses that become calcified” (p. 469).

Uses earwax impaction as analogy: rhetorical deafness caused by hardened bullshit (p. 469).

🤢 3. The Aesthetics of Disgust

Rice invokes Julia Kristeva’s Powers of Horror to explain disgust as a response to blocked flow:

“I experience a gagging sensation… the body, provoke tears and bile” (Kristeva qtd. p. 470).

Disgust arises not just from what is blocked, but from the unnatural presence of the blockage itself.

🔇 4. Bullshit Silences Mutual Exchange

Rhetoric, according to Rice, is marked by “porousness”—an openness to being changed in dialogue.
Bullshit halts this possibility:

“Bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (p. 470).

James Fredal is cited:

“Bullshit happens… when one side of a dialogue is unjustly disregarded” (p. 470).

🧱 5. Bullshit’s Danger Lies in Its Ethical Obstruction, Not Factual Inaccuracy

Frankfurt cares about truth, but Rice argues rhetoricians should worry about blockage of ethical response:

“Any attempts to question, engage, or respond… are obstructed by this layer of hardened desire” (p. 471).

🤮 6. Disgust as a Rhetorical Strategy

Disgust may be a productive rhetorical tactic, highlighting how bullshit can only be addressed on its own aesthetic terms:

“Disgust is a refusal to accept the blockage… a response that exploits blockage as fundamentally unacceptable” (p. 471).

Connects to David Hume’s theory:

“All sentiment is right… because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself” (Hume qtd. p. 471).

📢 7. Response as Ethical Imperative in Rhetoric

The real challenge of bullshit isn’t philosophical—it’s ethical and rhetorical.
Citing Michael Hyde’s The Call of Conscience, Rice emphasizes:

“We are bound to hear the call within the context of our everyday being-with-others” (Hyde qtd. p. 472).

Rhetoricians must strive to maintain the possibility of response, even when faced with obstruction.

💬 8. Final Anecdote: The Bullshit Answer Revisited

Revisiting the student’s quiz answer, Rice suggests the gesture was not deception but revulsion—a rejection of a system that silences real voice:

“Gagging on the quiz, maybe on the waxy surface of quizzes in general… trying to be heard in yet another professor’s impacted eardrum” (p. 472).

📚 Key References Cited in the Article

Frankfurt, H. G. On Bullshit (2005)
Kristeva, J. Powers of Horror (1982)
Fredal, J. “Rhetoric and Bullshit” in College English (2011)
Hyde, M. J. The Call of Conscience (2001)
Ahmed, S. The Cultural Politics of Emotion (2013)
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) (2008)

Hume, D. “Of the Standard of Taste” in The Rhetorical Tradition (2001)
Nyhan, B. et al., “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion” in Pediatrics (2014)

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

🔑 Theoretical Term	🧠 Explanation	📖 Reference
Bullshit (Frankfurtian)	Based on Harry Frankfurt’s theory, bullshit refers to speech unconcerned with truth, oriented instead toward persuasion, manipulation, or goal achievement without regard for factual accuracy. The speaker may not be lying but simply doesn’t care whether the claim is true or false.	Rice (2015) explains, “According to Frankfurt, belief in the discourse of bullshit is relatively insignificant… what matters is whether or not his or her goal is accomplished” (p. 468).
Rhetorical Blockage	Rice argues that bullshit acts as a form of discursive blockage, not merely poor reasoning but an obstruction that disrupts rhetorical exchange and prevents mutual engagement or ethical response.	“Bullshit might also be imagined as a blockage… relevant to those of us interested in discourses that become calcified in the arteries of the public sphere” (Rice, 2015, p. 469).
Porousness	This refers to the openness of rhetoric to dialogic exchange and transformation. True rhetorical interaction involves a vulnerability that allows beliefs to be changed. Bullshit, by contrast, resists this openness.	“Rhetoric… has an air of permeability and porousness… yet bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (Rice, 2015, p. 470).
Cognitive Dissonance	Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort caused by conflicting beliefs. Bullshit often emerges as a coping mechanism to resolve this tension by rejecting or distorting inconvenient truths.	Rice draws on Tavris and Aronson: “In order to reduce the tension, we must eliminate one of the cognitions… by dismissing it as untrue” (Rice, 2015, p. 469).
Cerumen Impaction	A metaphor Rice uses to describe how bullshit blocks rhetorical listening, similar to how wax blocks hearing in the ear. It symbolizes how bullshit prevents people from “hearing” counter-arguments or dissenting voices.	“Bullshit’s impaction is arguably a disgusting blockage of rhetorical eardrums” (Rice, 2015, p. 470).
Disgust (Kristevan)	Borrowing from Julia Kristeva, Rice presents disgust as a response to congealed, stagnant matter that blocks flow—both literally and rhetorically. Disgust becomes a metaphor for confronting bullshit’s impassable presence.	“Blockages themselves are so frequently cause for disgust” and Kristeva’s description of milk skin illustrates this metaphor: “I experience a gagging sensation…” (Rice, 2015, p. 470).
Sentimental Aesthetics	Rice connects bullshit with sentiment-driven discourse—rhetoric that is persuasive through feeling rather than fact. Logical refutation fails because bullshit is based on aesthetic appeal rather than rational proof.	“Bullshit discourse is itself rooted in a sentimental aesthetics… all sentiment is right… but all determinations of the understanding are not right” (Hume qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 471).
Arrogant Disregard	This concept, drawn from James Fredal, describes how bullshit stems from a dismissal of dialogic norms—where one participant believes they’re too powerful or skilled to engage cooperatively, shutting down rhetorical reciprocity.	“Bullshit arises from arrogant gestures of disregard” where “one party… feels superior enough… to dispense with the rituals of cooperative interaction” (Fredal qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 470).

Contribution of “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice to Literary Theory/Theories

📢 1. Contribution to Rhetorical Theory

Reframes bullshit as a rhetorical phenomenon rather than simply a philosophical or epistemological concern.

Moves beyond Harry Frankfurt’s focus on truth and deception to examine how bullshit functions as a disruption in rhetorical ethics and exchange.
Rice writes:

“Whereas Frankfurt and his fellow philosophers debate the exact composition of bullshit, bullshit’s response is a particularly unique problem for rhetoric” (p. 472).

Introduces “response” and “porousness” as defining rhetorical values that are obstructed by bullshit, making rhetorical blockage the core issue.

🎭 2. Contribution to Affect Theory

Uses disgust as an aesthetic and rhetorical affect—not just a physical reaction but a meaningful mode of refusal.
Incorporates Julia Kristeva’s theory of abjection (Powers of Horror) to explain the revulsion felt toward rhetorical blockages:

“Blockages themselves are so frequently cause for disgust… provoke tears and bile, increase heartbeat” (Kristeva qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 470).

Disgust becomes a strategic emotional response to unethical or manipulative discourse.

🧱 3. Contribution to Critical Discourse Theory

Applies discourse theory to institutional and public communication (e.g., anti-vaccine rhetoric), showing how bullshit calcifies argument and prevents productive deliberation.
Example: Parents reject pro-vaccination information not because they disbelieve it, but because it increases cognitive dissonance—leading them to dismiss it emotionally and rhetorically (p. 469).

Rice explains that:

“Information about the benefits of vaccinations and the belief in their harm cannot easily co-exist” (p. 469).

🗣️ 4. Contribution to Dialogic Theory

Echoes Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism by emphasizing how rhetoric requires openness to others—bullshit blocks that reciprocity.
Describes bullshit as a violation of mutual rhetorical exchange:

“Bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (p. 470).

Draws on Michael Hyde’s idea of the “call of conscience” as the basis of ethical dialogic engagement:

“We are bound to hear the call within the context of our everyday being-with-others” (Hyde qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 472).

🎨 5. Contribution to Aesthetic Theory

Challenges rationalist aesthetics by exploring how bullshit thrives through sentimentality, appealing not to truth but to affect, surface, and cleverness.

Connects this to David Hume’s notion that sentiment has no external referent and thus resists rebuttal:

“All sentiment is right… always real… but all determinations of the understanding are not” (Hume qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 471).

Proposes that aesthetic responses like revulsion may be more rhetorically effective than rational argument against bullshit.

🧠 6. Contribution to Ethical Literary Criticism

Rice reorients attention from what bullshit is to how we respond to it, linking literary/rhetorical ethics to the conditions of response.
This aligns with a broader movement in literary theory that focuses on responsibility, voice, and engagement rather than abstract judgment.
She notes:

“Conditions of response—creating the ongoing possibility of responding to every call—is precisely the work for rhetoric” (p. 472).

🚪 7. Contribution to Post-Structuralism

Implicitly engages with post-structuralist ideas of instability and blockage in language, but pushes further by theorizing why discourse fails—not because of language itself, but because of willful obstruction.
Rice’s metaphor of bullshit as a “fatty buildup” critiques the closure of meaning-making spaces, offering a more materialist view of rhetorical dysfunction (p. 469–470).

🧰 8. Contribution to Pedagogical Theory

Uses classroom experience to theorize the limits of conventional assessment, where even a student’s ironic answer may reveal more rhetorical insight than standardized expectations allow.

Reflects:

“His response—‘This answer is bullshit’—seemed to not be a particularly strong example of bluffing… but a rejection of what was, by all accounts, a bullshit question” (p. 472).

Examples of Critiques Through “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

📘 Literary Work	🎯 Core Theme	💣 Bullshit as Rhetorical Blockage	🤢 Disgust & Sentimentality	📖 Critical Insight Using Rice
🇮🇳 Operation Fox-Hunt by Siddhartha Thorat	RAW-led tactical excellence vs. cross-border terror	Constructs an invincible Indian military narrative; Pakistani actors are demonized, blocking any dialogic or ethical nuance in conflict representation.	The novel wraps military actions in sentimental glorification, promoting awe over inquiry and reducing space for critique.	Rice argues, “Bullshit… blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (2015, p. 470)—the novel blocks mutuality between conflicting narratives.
🕵️ The Karachi Deception by Shatrujeet Nath	Covert strike mission into Pakistan	Strategic ambiguity is masked by action-thriller conventions; bullshit as narrative smokescreen that blocks reflection on geopolitical complexity.	Evokes disgust for the enemy but admiration for mission success—aesthetic performance replaces moral deliberation.	Rice’s notion that “bullshit is rooted in sentimental aesthetics” (p. 471) helps critique how the novel frames violence through stylized admiration.
🔥 Operation Hellfire by Siddhartha Thorat	Retaliation against state-backed terror	Repeats a closed-loop narrative of revenge and justice, foreclosing any critical engagement with war ethics or cross-border entanglements.	Sentimentality shields Indian military action from critique, appealing to national pride as unquestionable truth.	Like Rice’s “cerumen impaction” (p. 469), the novel clogs space for listening to other perspectives under the weight of patriotic performance.
🧨 Operation Jinnah by Shiv Aroor	RAW vs. ISI espionage battle	The narrative reinforces India’s moral superiority; bullshit as moral absolutism oversimplifies the grey zones of espionage and national conflict.	Pakistan is evil; India is righteous. Binary sentiment replaces porous debate, channeling revulsion into superiority.	Rice notes that “bullshit arises from arrogant gestures of disregard” (p. 470)—a dynamic clearly mirrored in the novel’s framing of India–Pakistan dynamics.
🏔️ The Himalayan Gambit by Rajesh K. Singh	High-altitude warfare in Kashmir	Overplays India’s defensive purity; narrative blocks space for Kashmiri agency or voices, presenting conflict as a two-player chessboard.	Emotional reverence for soldiers overshadows lived suffering in conflict zones—valor sentimentality replaces ethical discomfort.	Rice’s metaphor of blockage (pp. 469–470) critiques how conflict is presented without allowing for transformative dialogue or ethical discomfort.
👤 The Black Widow by Rishi Gupta	Feminist spy vs. Pakistan-linked terror cell	Feminist empowerment is aligned with nationalist ideals, creating a performative patriotism that uses identity politics to deflect critical questioning.	Disgust is weaponized—aimed at villains and moral corruption, not systems—sentiment replaces structural critique.	Rice’s claim that “bullshit… is a blockage of rhetorical eardrums” (p. 470) applies here: the narrative silences deeper critique by using identity as moral justification.

Criticism Against “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

🎯 1. Overextension of the Metaphor of “Blockage”

Rice’s use of bodily and physiological metaphors (earwax, milk skin, arterial clogging) may be seen as overwrought or excessively figurative.
Critics might argue these metaphors obscure clarity, making rhetorical analysis feel anecdotal or performative rather than rigorous.

The metaphor of “cerumen impaction” (p. 469) risks trivializing complex discursive dysfunctions through sensational imagery.

📏 2. Lack of Clear Methodological Framework

The essay reads more like a philosophical meditation or personal reflection than a structured academic argument.
Critics could point out a lack of empirical evidence or formal rhetorical analysis, which may weaken the essay’s theoretical authority.

There’s minimal engagement with opposing theories of bullshit beyond Frankfurt, limiting dialogic robustness.

🔄 3. Redundant with Frankfurt’s Theory

While claiming to move beyond Frankfurt, Rice’s framework is arguably still deeply tethered to his definition of bullshit.
Her central claim—that bullshit is unconcerned with truth but focused on effect—is already present in Frankfurt’s original thesis.

Critics may question whether the essay adds enough theoretical novelty beyond metaphor and affect.

⚖️ 4. Ambiguity Around Ethical Judgments

Rice suggests that disgust can be a rhetorical tactic, but this raises ethical concerns.
Disgust is a morally loaded and culturally contingent emotion, which has historically been used to justify exclusion and oppression (as Sara Ahmed and Kristeva have also noted).

Encouraging its rhetorical use may risk endorsing reactionary or exclusionary responses, especially in polarized political discourse.

🧱 5. Problematic Idealization of “Porousness”

The essay valorizes rhetorical “porousness” as inherently good—but porousness is not always safe or productive.
In high-stakes political or ethical contexts, openness to dialogue may enable harm or disinformation rather than mutual understanding.

Critics may argue that not all discursive engagements deserve mutuality, especially when rooted in bad faith.

🌀 6. Ambivalence Toward Power and Agency

Rice identifies “bullshit” as a symptom of power-driven disregard, yet doesn’t fully theorize who has the power to deploy or resist it.
There’s limited analysis of institutional structures that generate bullshit—e.g., media, government, corporate PR.

The result is a critique of discourse without an equally strong critique of systems.

💬 7. Undeveloped Pedagogical Application

Although it begins with a teaching anecdote, Rice does not offer a clear educational takeaway.
Some readers may find her acceptance of the student’s sarcastic response overly generous or pedagogically uncritical.

This raises questions about the role of academic authority and standards in evaluating bullshit.

Representative Quotations from “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	💬 Explanation
1️⃣ “What is bullshit? This answer is bullshit.” (p. 468)	This student’s ironic response becomes Rice’s starting point for exploring bullshit not as falsehood, but as an action that sidesteps truth altogether—capturing Frankfurt’s core thesis.
2️⃣ “Bullshit is not so much about belief or intention with regard to truth… but a technique designed to accomplish a silent motive.” (p. 468)	Rice reframes bullshit as strategic rhetoric, shifting analysis from epistemology (truth/falsity) to intention and consequence in communication.
3️⃣ “We might find it more useful to describe it in terms of activity.” (p. 469)	Rice argues that bullshit is better understood as rhetorical performance—an action with discursive effects, not just a content problem.
4️⃣ “Certain instances of bullshit are an effect of cognitive dissonance reduction.” (p. 469)	By linking bullshit to cognitive dissonance, Rice suggests it functions as a way to block discomfort caused by conflicting truths—especially in public health debates.
5️⃣ “Bullshit’s impaction is arguably a disgusting blockage of rhetorical eardrums.” (p. 470)	A metaphor for how bullshit stops people from listening or engaging—it creates a rhetorical deafness that prevents mutual understanding.
6️⃣ “Bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness.” (p. 470)	Rice emphasizes that true rhetoric requires openness, while bullshit hardens discourse into rigid positions where transformation is impossible.
7️⃣ “Bullshit arises from arrogant gestures of disregard.” (Fredal qtd., p. 470)	Citing Fredal, Rice underlines that bullshit is often an abuse of rhetorical power, where one side refuses to respect the other’s voice in discourse.
8️⃣ “Disgust is the response that exploits blockage as fundamentally unacceptable.” (p. 471)	Rice presents disgust as a rhetorical tactic, a visceral rejection of discursive obstruction that unmasks the failure of bullshit to allow engagement.
9️⃣ “Bullshit discourse is itself rooted in a sentimental aesthetics.” (p. 471)	She critiques how bullshit often appeals to emotion or spectacle, bypassing rational discourse in favor of affective manipulation.
🔟 “Bullshit’s challenge for rhetoricians is to continue listening for the call.” (p. 472)	Concludes with a call to rhetorical ethics—arguing that the true work of rhetoric is to create conditions for ethical response, even in the face of bullshit.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30