A rhetorical pattern identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel (2005) — where an arguer defends a controversial claim (the bailey) by retreating to a less controversial claim (the motte) when challenged, then reoccupying the bailey when pressure eases.
Motte-and-bailey as rhetorical device: The castle analogy: a bailey is a pleasant, spacious courtyard where people live (the controversial thesis); the motte is a fortified tower that is easy to defend but unpleasant to live in (the modest, defensible version of the thesis). The fallacy: assert the bailey in normal discourse; when challenged, retreat to the motte and accuse critics of attacking a straw man; when the challenge passes, reoccupy the bailey. James Lindsay has applied this framework extensively to critical theory discourse — arguing that terms like 'equity' or 'anti-racism' are used as mottes (equal treatment, opposing discrimination) when challenged but deployed as baileys (equal outcomes, race-conscious policy) in practice.
Discussing
Ask anything about Motte and Bailey — their ideas, influences, contradictions, legacy.
Sign in to start a conversation.