Physically a dog whistle is a device for producing a sound pitched too high for human hearing but still audible to dogs. Linguistically it is a word or phrase that has one generally accepted meaning, usually based on context free interpretation, but for a selected audience has an entirely different meaning or emotional weight. These linguistic tricks are commonly utilized when someone has a position that is socially or politically unacceptable that they want deniability in promoting. Political operative Lee Atwater stated when politicians could no longer use the pejorative ‘N-Word’ that they could replace it by speaking of ‘states rights.’
The key power of dog whistles is that they are deniable. When someone is confronted the person deploying the dog whistles can either deny that they intended the offensive meaning or even turn the table and accuse the accuser for think in such terms. By their very nature you can never prove that a word or phrase has a sub-rose meaning providing a very powerful tool for propaganda and manipulation.
Compounding the problem is that a word or phrase may be deployed in an utterly innocent manner but because of other associations be taken by opponents as a ‘dog whistle,’ and the speaker cannot disprove ill intent any more than someone can prove it. ‘Inner City’ can used to speak about urban cores but it is also deployed as a coded speech for ethnic minorities.
So what sort of guideline can a listener use to try to sort innocent use from dog whistles?
For one I think absent other evidence it’s best to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt. If someone who is clearly ignorant of WWII says ‘4th Reich and then quickly corrects to ‘3rd Reich then I am inclined to excuse it as clumsy speaking rather than coded speech.
However repetition of ambiguous word or phrase, particularly when other expressed concerns about its alternative meanings if much more indicative of coded speech. One might use the term ‘globalist’ to refer to the cadres of the super wealthy who have no emotional ties to any nation, but the phrase is also loaded with a long history of anti-Semitism. If someone continue deploying the word even after many have expressed their horror at its alternate meaning and especially if that use continues to be directed to people of Jewish ancestry then its hard to come to any other reasonable conclusion except that it is being used as a dog whistle for that ugly racism.
As with most things when dealing with language, context is king and it is in context that you can usually find the answer, though it will remain not provable, what is and is not a dog whistle.
