When decorum seems to fail: from authority-based ethos to similarity-based ethos

Abstract This article offers a philosophical reinterpretation of the classical rhetorical principle of decorum in the context of contemporary public communication. It examines how linguistic forms traditionally regarded as inappropriate, particularly taboo language, may participate in the construction of rhetorical credibility. Although taboo language has been studied extensively from linguistic, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and psychological perspectives, its relationship to rhetorical ethos , political proximity, and the strategic negotiation of communicative norms merits further consideration within argumentation theory. The article proposes a distinction between authority-based and similarity-based ethos as two analytical modes of credibility construction that may coexist within the same rhetorical performance. Drawing on relational accounts of ethos , Burke’s concept of identification, and the pragma-dialectical notion of strategic maneuvering, it argues that taboo language may, in particular contexts, function as a resource for reducing perceived distance between a speaker and an audience. This possibility does not imply that such language is inherently persuasive or that its use necessarily enhances credibility. Its rhetorical significance depends on contextual interpretation, audience expectations, and the communicative function it performs. Three examples from contemporary public discourse serve as heuristic illustrations of possible mechanisms of identification rather than as empirical evidence of audience reception or persuasive effects. The article thus develops an account of decorum as context-sensitive rhetorical appropriateness while acknowledging the limitations of the proposed conceptual model.