What Is a Motte & Bailey?
A popular deceptive tactic you should be aware of
The motte and bailey as a form of argumentation is a rather recent phenomenon. It has been used to great effect by some people talking about today’s hottest topics. It’s important to learn how to identify it and understand how it works. Once you do, you’ll spot the tactic easily and in places where you might not have expected. For me, it was like a curtain had been lifted and I could see the truth much more easily, à la the Wizard of Oz.
The medieval structure
The origin of the term is that it is a type of castle developed in medieval Europe. It consists of (for our purposes) two features, the motte and the bailey. I think it’s useful to explain them in reverse order.
The bailey is the desirable place. It is where people want to be. It is large and comfortable and where all the living and working gets done. It is generally flat and open. The problem with the bailey is that it vulnerable. It is hard to defend and susceptible to attack from multiple directions.
The motte is defensible. This is its primary feature. It is designed to do nothing but be defended. The motte is a tall hill so that attackers are exhausted on their way up it, and it has great sight lines, including overlooking the bailey. The building that sits on the motte is the sturdiest, heaviest structure of the castle. It is uncomfortable. No one wants to be on the motte. The motte is used only when the castle is under attack. The people living and working in the bailey retreat to the motte for the duration of the attack.
The argumentation tactic
The tactic is essentially the same for medieval warfare or modern argumentation. A person wants to be in the bailey, but when the bailey is attacked, they retreat to the motte. For example, “some vaccines have a risk of serious, potentially deadly side effects,” is a motte. This is a true statement that cannot be defeated. Not all mottes are this strong. However, pay attention to what else the person saying it might be trying to promote. Are they talking about the right to refuse having their child vaccinated? Do they refuse to acknowledge the low percentage of the side effects? Are they dismissive of how herd immunity works? Do they speak out against all vaccines all the time, regardless of the level of risk of side effects? Their bailey is likely that all vaccines are bad, if not all the time, then at least for them. It’s a personal risk aversion that they’re trying to justify by externalizing that risk.
A more illuminating example is Black Lives Matter (BLM). BLM has very clearly outlined what it wants, i.e. its bailey, here. What BLM wants are many things beyond the obvious that have nothing to do with black lives. For example, they prioritize black women over black men, which would seem to be the opposite of trying to prevent black people from being killed by police, since the vast majority of them are men. BLM fights for trans rights, particularly those of black trans women, and to “dismantle cisgender privilege.” They prioritize women again when they say they want to “build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.” They prioritize mothers by “dismantl[ing] the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private.” BLM works to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family.” They “foster a queer-affirming network” by “freeing [them]selves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).” They “cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.”
This is BLM clearly outlining their desired state, their bailey. But there’s a lot in there that can be disputed or argued against, in other words attacked. What does BLM do when the bailey is attacked? They retreat to the motte.
What is BLM’s motte? It’s right in the name: Black Lives Matter. This is a position that is impossible to attack, and no one is even trying to attack it. Of course black lives matter. BLM has thus built a very strong motte into its very name. It is as difficult as it can possibly be to separate Black Lives Matter, the organization, from the idea that black lives matter.
What BLM does when someone criticizes (attacks) one of their desired positions (trans rights, anti-male, queer-affirming, anti-nuclear family, etc.), a.k.a. their bailey positions, is to retreat to their motte position: “You’re attacking the idea that black lives matter!”
BLM removed the page that listed their desires after this motte and bailey tactic was pointed out by others, which is why an archival version is linked to above. None of this is to cast judgement on BLM’s positions (bailey or motte) or the organization as a whole, it’s merely to point out the tactic.
The motte and bailey tactic is dishonest. It advertises one thing that is easy to convince people to support (motte), but really contains much more that is harder to convince people to support (bailey). So long as people think that they’re supporting the motte and don’t see, or have convinced themselves of the absence of the bailey, they are support things they otherwise might not.
Now that you’ve learned about the motte and bailey tactic, see where you can spot it. It gets used all the time. Once you become practiced at spotting it, you’ll see the man behind the curtain long before the wizard has you doing his bidding. Even better, make sure you’re not using it. An argument won with a dishonest tactic doesn’t increase anyone’s understanding — it’s just manipulation.
