The rhetoric of reaction, extended

Abstract

Sunstein (2022) reconsiders Hirschman’s influential discussion of three types of “rhetoric of reaction,” by which reform is opposed by suggesting that it will have the opposite effect to that intended (Perversity), won’t work (Futility), or will have negative unintended consequences (Jeopardy). Sunstein suggests that just such rhetoric is at work in critiques (including our own, Chater & Loewenstein, in press) of “nudges” as a public policy tool. We argue, by contrast, that reactionary forces, especially including powerful commercial interests, have developed a fourth rhetorical strategy, more indirect, but just as powerful as Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy: the strategy of blaming the individual for societal problems. Blaming the individual for their carbon footprint, obesity, or failure to prepare adequately for retirement promotes the view that solutions to societal problems should primarily aim to help individuals make better choices (e.g., through better education, providing information, or judicious nudging). Thus, individual-level interventions are touted as an alternative to more fundamental, systemic reform.