ABSTRACT

The significance of the terms special interests, conflict of interest, and special pleading in argumentative rhetoric hinges on definitions of both the words interest and special that differ from everyday usage. When we say that someone is “an interested party” in a dispute, that “it is in her interest to support this policy,” or that “his argument is self-interested,” we do not mean that the person simply is interested in the subject; “to have an interest” here refers to having an investment or stake (financial or otherwise) in the outcome, some personal benefit. The term disinterested, as in “disinterested research,” refers approvingly to the neutral, objective rhetorical stance of a speaker or writer who has no personal stake in an issue. (Note that disinterested is not synonymous with uninterested, though it is often misused that way.)

Likewise, special here is synonymous with a private, often selfish motive for support of a public policy. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines special interest as “a person or group having an interest [as in investment] in a particular part of the economy and receiving or seeking special advantages therein often to the detriment of the general public.” Special pleading, then, refers to people arguing for a position that they present as being in the public’s benefit when it is secretly for the benefit of special interests. So special pleading typically uses the one-sided tactics of propaganda and stacking the deck to conceal the fact that the speaker or writer is presenting only the side of an issue that favors the interests being served. Most advertising, public relations, and lobbying messages are obvious forms of special pleading.