Summary: Researchers examining the language used by dictators and organized hate movements have identified a common pattern: dehumanizing metaphors that prime the brain to accept and amplify hatred. These metaphors activate entrenched neural pathways, bypassing reflective reasoning and directing attention toward specific hostile meanings.
Repeated exposure to this kind of language reinforces those neural circuits, making it increasingly difficult for people to revise their beliefs even when faced with clear contradictory evidence.
The research highlights the serious risks associated with such rhetoric, including the escalation of violence and broader political instability.
Key Facts:
- Dehumanizing metaphors appearing in the rhetoric of dictators and extremist groups help instill and spread hatred by engaging specific neural circuits in the brain.
- With repeated activation, these neural circuits grow more rigid, reducing the ability to reconsider false narratives, conspiracy theories, or fabricated claims.
- People who strongly accept these narratives are unlikely to change their minds when confronted with contradicting facts, often seeking confirming information instead.
Source: Taylor and Francis Group
In Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories, published today, Marcel Danesi, Ph.D., professor of semiotics and linguistic anthropology at the University of Toronto, examines speeches and propaganda from figures such as Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, and Hitler, along with rhetoric from prominent hate organizations.
Danesi’s analysis reveals a shared strategy: dehumanizing metaphors that frame targeted groups as animals, pests, or contaminants, effectively making it easier to justify exclusion, discrimination, or violence.
“The aim of this language is to delegitimize those viewed as outside the dominant group — for example, racial minorities or people with different sexual orientations,” Danesi explains. Such language reduces perceived moral constraints and prepares audiences for harsher actions or policies.
How metaphorical language works
Historically, regimes and movements have used vivid animal and filth metaphors to portray outsiders as less than human. The Nazi regime frequently invoked terms like “parasites,” “reptiles,” and “vermin” to devalue entire populations. Comparable imagery resurfaced in modern events such as the 2017 Charlottesville rally, where demonstrators used both animalizing and dirt metaphors to attack those they opposed.
In more recent years, the spread of populist and far-right movements has disseminated similar metaphors worldwide. For example, public campaigns in some countries have described migrants and refugees in terms that suggest contamination or poison, simplifying complex social issues into emotionally charged, dehumanizing language.
Our brain wiring
Danesi’s work draws on cognitive linguistics and neuroscience to explain why such metaphors are so potent. Metaphors do more than decorate speech: they selectively activate networks in the brain that link images and ideas. By doing so, they can override more deliberative, analytical processes and push audiences toward particular interpretations.
Repeated activation makes these networks more automatic. As Danesi notes, “The more these circuits are engaged, the more hardwired they become, which makes them extremely resistant to change.” The same neural dynamics apply to conspiracy thinking: believers often develop rigid patterns of thought that resist contradictory evidence.
“When people encounter a persuasive lie or conspiracy narrative, it can shape their beliefs without conscious awareness,” Danesi says. “Exposure to targeted metaphors can generate hostility and even motivate violent action because the language flips psychological switches that lower resistance to harm.”
Entrenched ideas and consequences
Research shows that once falsehoods become integrated into a person’s worldview, correcting them is extremely difficult. Rather than updating beliefs, people often seek out information that confirms their existing views, ignore conflicting sources, or reinterpret contradictory evidence to fit their narrative.
Danesi warns that the social consequences can be grave. Lies and dehumanizing speech have historically contributed to violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. In contemporary contexts, the spread of manipulative language also undermines political stability and can erode democratic norms.
What can be done?
Danesi recommends increased awareness of metaphorical framing: learning to recognize the rhetorical devices others use and examining the metaphors we ourselves employ. This critical stance can reduce the automatic influence of harmful language, though he acknowledges its limits. Once lies are entrenched, the brain’s susceptibility to further deceptive framing increases, making prevention and early intervention crucial.
About this psychology and neuroscience research news
Author: Becky Parker-Ellis
Source: Taylor and Francis Group
Contact: Becky Parker-Ellis – Taylor and Francis Group
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective by Marcel Danesi is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective
Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective explores how language shapes cognition, perception, and belief, and how it can be used to manipulate thought. This book is the first sustained application of cognitive linguistics to political falsehoods and conspiracy narratives, analyzing the verbal techniques — metaphor, irony, connotation, and other rhetorical devices — that make alternative narratives persuasive and proliferative.
Danesi demonstrates how these linguistic structures can “switch on” or “switch off” different ways of perceiving the world, and why that capacity makes them powerful tools in modern political communication. The work is essential for students and researchers in cognitive linguistics, discourse analysis, rhetoric, and political science, offering insights into the verbal mechanics that underlie contemporary challenges to democratic deliberation.