The blame game with ad hominem

Roopa Banerjee

“You can’t trust his opinion on politics; he doesn’t even have a college degree.” This is a classic example of an ad hominem attack, an argumentative tactic where the focus shifts from the issue to personal characteristics of the adversary. Rather than addressing the issue at hand, the adversary is attacked based on personal traits. This is a common, though often self-defeating, strategy used in debates, rhetoric, literature, and popular culture.

The phrase ad hominem originates from the Latin ‘ad’ meaning ‘to’ or ‘toward’, and ‘hominem’ is the accusative form of ‘homo,’ meaning ‘man’ or ‘person’. Originally, the phrase was not inherently negative. In classical rhetoric, ad hominem could refer to any argument that addressed the beliefs or characteristics of an opponent. However, in modern use, ad hominem has taken on a more judgemental sense, referring to personal attacks that bypass the substance of an argument.

Ad hominem attacks are aplenty in literary works. For instance, in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Prof. Dolores Umbridge frequently employs ad hominem attacks to discredit Harry and his friends. She does this by attacking their reliability, implying they are untrustworthy troublemakers rather than directly addressing their claims about the return of Lord Voldemort.

Umbridge dismisses Harry’s claim not by addressing the evidence he provides but by undermining his character as someone who “causes problems”. This ad hominem attack attempts to silence Harry and his supporters by focusing on his rebellious reputation rather than the veracity of his statements.

Another example can is in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby where Tom Buchanan uses ad hominem attacks to discredit Jay Gatsby. Rather than addressing the issue of Gatsby’s accomplishments, Tom attacks his background, citing his lack of old-money status to undermine him.

Ad hominem attacks are frequently employed in pop culture, often for comedic or dramatic effect. In these contexts, the personal nature of the attack is exaggerated to heighten conflict or provoke laughter.

A classic example is from The Simpsons where this literary device is used with humor, especially in exchanges between Homer and his neighbors or coworkers. For example, when Homer is criticised for a decision he made, his response often doesn’t address the issue but takes the form of a personal attack. In one episode, after being questioned by Ned Flanders, Homer responds:

Homer: “I don’t need advice from a guy with a mustache like that!”

The humor stems from the absurdity of Homer’s irrelevant criticism, highlighting how he often sidesteps logic in favor of childish insults.

While an ad hominem attack is effective to discredit an opponent, it is often viewed as a logical fallacy because it shifts the focus of an argument onto irrelevant personal traits. Its use can expose a debater’s inability to refute the substance of an argument being advanced, thus weakening her position in the estimation of more discerning audiences.

However, despite its logical shortcomings, the ad hominem tactic can be very persuasive in situations where emotions run high. It is often used in political debates, courtrooms, and media to sway public opinion by targeting an individual’s perceived moral character or personal shortcomings, rather than their substantive argument.

Ad hominem attacks are a powerful, though often self-defending, strategy to undermine opponents by rhetoric and entertainment. They are frequently employed to heighten tension, expose character flaws, or inject humor. However though personal attacks may be effective in certain contexts, they ultimately weaken the overall quality of the discourse by diverting attention from real issues.

Exercise

Name the authors of these literary works which use ad hominem extensively