The Fearful and the Factless

ARCS Ch. 7 – Proximity and Emotional Intensity

In light of the recent presidential debates and political campaigns I found the section of honorific and pejorative language to particularly interesting. The example of the pieced written by Peggy Noonan and the rewritten version reminded me of a video that I saw on Facebook comparing Donald Trump’s response to a comment and the way that John McCain responded to a different but similar type of comment. In the video a man in the crowd states President Obama is a Muslim and how there are training camps teaching people how to kill and Trump allows the man to keep speaking. The man ends with the question “when can we get rid of them? Donald Trump replies with, “We’re gonna be looking at a lot of different things,” and he has also gone on air in past years implying that President Obama could be a Muslim. And, although his replies do not implicitly state that the President is a Muslim he says things in a way that allows the audience to come to that conclusion, especially if they are already leaning towards that state of mind or type of thinking. In Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, chapter seven states “Proximity also influences the intensity with which fear is felt…proximity is related to emotional intensity…” (177). It seems as though because turmoil surrounding the Muslim religion still exists, Donald Trump has tried to use this to his advantage to play off the fear that some people feel towards the religion and create a sense of fear towards the President as well. He is attempting to make an appeal to people’s emotion through their fear. He uses similar tactics when discussing immigration as well, playing off anger.

It is my personal opinion that this tactic is usually off-putting and tends to seem radical in many cases, just as the Hitler examples in the book on page 178 seemed. The same video included John McCain’s response to a woman who calls President Obama an Arab. McCain takes the microphone from her and says, “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.” I would not consider myself to have been a supporter of McCain during that time but I can appreciate his response and I can see the appeals that I believe he was able to make in such a short response. He made concessions by stating that the President is a decent man and citizen, which implies that he can be trusted to make logical decisions or takes an honest approach to the campaign. And, he appeals to peoples emotions by using the word “fundamental” which in many instances, including this one, means core issues and will resonate with people who feel a sense of anger, disappointment, or fear towards the current state of fundamental issues. Much like the exampled “I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler” (178) McCain says the same thing, he disagrees with President Obama but doesn’t think he is a bad Arab. It distinguishes McCain as someone who has put thought into both sides of the issues and appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos.  He is still able to draw on the emotions that people feel towards current issues but in a way that seems more logical.

Rhetroc, It's All Around Us

RT – Boethius & An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric

In The Rhetorical Tradition it discusses how Boethius could be considered a part of the Aristotelian tradition and that he believed “in denying rhetoric a separate knowledge-generating status. It is merely the servant of dialectic, a method of applying arguments” (487). I think that this way of thinking can still be found among people who aren’t well-versed in the subject of rhetoric. I know that when I first thought of the term rhetoric – prior to taking any rhetoric classes – I mainly thought it was what methods someone used when trying to convince someone of something. Even then, I thought of it more in terms of debating and advertisements. However, the more I learn about the subject the more obvious it becomes to me that that definition is lacking.

What I found interesting in this section as well is the part about the Ciceronian tradition, which includes “a more humanistic approach that treats language and knowledge as interrelated and thus affords rhetoric some parity with philosophy” (487). The more I learn about rhetoric, the more clear the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric becomes to me. Without valuing the search for knowledge and how we can express what we know and believe good rhetoric would not be possible. Specifically, the five parts to rhetoric outlined in the book invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. Without an appreciation for many of the concepts and ideas that philosophy focuses on as rhetoricians we wouldn’t care and give much thought to our ideas, at least not enough to bring them to people’s attention and in a manner that can persuade them.

The second part of the reading regarding the structure or rhetoric builds on what was discussed in the previous section. Boethius had a very limited view on rhetoric when it is actually pretty complex. Most importantly, we must decide which type of rhetoric applies to the situation at hand. Is it judicial, demonstrative, or deliberative? Based on that we can then decide if we want to make an appeal to ethos, pathos, or logos, or some combination of those.  When I think about how I can apply these concepts to my own life, I think it is important to remember that “the orator must look for his goal both in himself and his audience” (490). In one of my other rhetoric classes today we had to participate in a simulation that when I took it at face value, the use of rhetoric didn’t even cross my mind or many of our group members minds either. There was one person who brought up how the other group might react but for the most part that thought was dismissed which in hindsight seems silly since this was an exercise for a rhetoric class. We were given the task of creating a way to provide assistance for a group who we thought was in need. However, when we presented our ideas we were confronted with opposition and myself along with my group had to quickly come up with responses to address their concerns with some of us employing the use of rhetoric better than others. This served as a reminder that rhetoric is all around us.

Eloquence, Knowledge, and Concessions

ARCS Ch. 6, The Rhetorical Tradition - Augustine

 

This quote from the Augustine reading in Ancient Rhetorics struck me the most from the readings. “And still, although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in subdued manner when something ought to be done and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not with to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts” (471). The topic of eloquence was discussed a lot during this section and I think that it’s easy to forget that eloquence doesn’t always mean speaking grandly but rather in a way which fits the situation, and that quote perfectly summed it up for me. For me, when I watch someone speaking whether it be a politician, a motivational speaker, or a peer that I’m having a conversation with I can appreciate what they are saying more when their tone or approach changes as the subject or the aim or seriousness of the subject shifts. Sometimes I forget that motivational speakers use rhetoric heavily in their talks, I forgot that in order for a motivational speaker to be effective in helping someone in some way, they must first be able to convince the person that their advice is good, sound advice. If they were to speak in a grand style all the time, in my opinion, would become less relatable.

The idea of being relatable ties into the reading from Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students such that ethos plays a strong part in ones ability to persuade someone or make their point. Credibility is obviously a key part in a speaker’s success, but credibility doesn’t always have to be established with formal approaches. I thought that the example of Ta-Nehisis Coates invented ethos is a great example of building credibility by knowing how to speak to the audience in a way that was specific to them. He used words like anyway, a lotta, and hell but at no point during reading it did I think he was uneducated or uninformed. He spoke eloquently while also being relatable.  From reading or listening to other people’s speeches and even looking back at my own personal experiences I can see how eloquence is gained through being knowledgeable and is apparent. I’m a much more put together speaker and writer when I have covered all my bases and have done my research, it gives me a sense of confidence. I don’t have to rely on a grand style of speaking to make myself appear to know what I am talking about. Another important part of Coates speech was the concession that he made the comment “it’s quite possible that I have this backwards…I first encountered French fries amongst black folks” (151. By making concessions not only does the speaker make themself appear to be “honest and trustworthy” (151) but also it shows that they are open-minded. For me, I am much more open to what someone has to say when the person speaking is also open to other points of views.

Logic, Enthymemes, and Marketing

ACRS - Ch. 5

I found this chapter to be particularly useful because I currently work as a writing/marketing intern with the Washington State University Alumni Association and I am often given the task of writing marketing materials to help generate new memberships. This chapter focused on using logic and premises to convey a certain message, which I found interesting and applicable to the type of writing that I have to do on a fairly regular basis. A part of my job is to write convincing material that appeals to a specific audience. And, while we often appeal to our audience’s pathos by drawing on their emotional attachment to their alma mater, we also make strong appeals using logos or logic. We do so by including statistics regarding how many members we already have and the rate at which membership increases, for example “be a part of one of the fastest growing alumni associations in the country.” When I first read that tagline, I didn’t view it in the terms or premises and conclusions or break it down to really understand how it works. However, after reading this chapter it became clearer to me. This provides the major premise that the WSUAA is rapidly growing thanks to new memberships, the minor premise that a high number of other Washington State University alumni think that it is important to become a member of the WSUAA, and the conclusion that if you are a WSU alumni you should also join the WSUAA. Now that I have a better understanding of using premises and conclusions to send a message, I think that I will be more successful when writing marketing materials. The example from the book about Apple’s “Think Different” campaign was a great in that it shows how just a few simple words can actually draw such big conclusions.

Enthymemes are an interesting topic because as the book describes it, it refers to a persons ability to think and feel, “it cuts to the heart of the matter” (Crowley, Hawhee 125). To me, this means that not only is logic important but that it is closely related to a person’s pathos or emotion. If you can take a logical approach that clearly portrays why something is important to someone you will be able to conjure up strong feelings that can often result in some sort of action. For example, when the WSUAA sends out a campaign about how membership fees help support vital programs such as student scholarships and career events, we are again providing a logical reason as to why membership is important but we are also appealing to peoples pathos, what they consider to be important causes. The “heart of the matter” in this case could be the importance of education and the need for scholarships. So, the major premise is WSUAA memberships help fund vital programs, the minor premise is student scholarships allow education to be possible for students, and the conclusion is by being a member of the WSUAA you are helping support students.

Past, Present, and Future

ACRS - Ch. 4 

“However, our experiences, and especially our memories of them, are influenced by prevailing cultural attitudes to such an extent that it is doubtful that anyone ever has a totally original idea” (Crowly, Hawhee 98).  I think that this important and goes back to what was covered during the last class about the need for discussion.  In order to really unpack something we need to look back at the past and evaluate it. We may feel so strongly about an ideology that our cultural has adopted that our own views become heavily rooted in what was passed down to us from somewhere. However, discussion itself is not enough; as mentioned in chapter four of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, we have to ask ourselves questions about the past “How did things used to be?” and also “What was impossible in the past?” Specifically, I think it is important to ask the latter question because this allows us to recognize the limitations that we faced in the past and hopefully how we were able to overcome those limitations. If we were able to overcome something that our culture once thought was impossible, this suggests that changes occurred and that they can also occur again. For example, during a speech or even just a discussion among friends for peers, if we are able to show how we have progressed from the past (in regards to a certain subject) we invented a topic, “any procedure that generates arguments, such as definition and division or comparison and contrast” (Crowly, Hawhee 89). By doing so, we have set the foundation to discuss how our current situation compares to the past and/or how it can be redefined and therefore requires a new approach or way of thinking. Additionally, we have created kairos, an opportunity or need to address the topic to induce some type of change.

A recent even that comes to mind is the WSU professors who indicated that in their syllabus that certain words would be banned, while at least one of the terms I did understand their reasoning, for the most part they were going against an ideology or way of thinking and using words that has long been accepted in our country. And, although there is kairos that exists, they did not address all sides to the topic that they invented, including students rights to freedom of speech. They only addressed part of the topic and only briefly at that. Moreover, choosing a class syllabus did not provide them with the platform needed to really address not only the past and how we have progressed as a country in a way that we need to ban these terms and why it is important for the future of our country.

Stasis, It's Okay

ACRS Ch. 3, RT Plato

The quote, “Oral dialogue between congenial souls is far superior to writing because it can lead to the truth,” from The Rhetorical Tradition struck me to be very true and also very important. I could feel strongly about something and write out every reason why, every approach that could be taken, all the possible outcomes in an effort to prepare to be able to defend my idea, just as it is suggested that rhetoricians do in chapter three of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students and present that document to someone. But, unless I engage in some sort of meaningful conversation with someone else about it, someone who may not agree with me fully, I will also never really fully understand all aspects of the situation. It’s somewhat like when people say unless you can explain how to do something in a way that someone else can truly understand how to do it also, you really don’t have a full understanding yourself. I think the same idea applies to the act of persuasion. Not only do you have to understand all aspects of an idea or situation, we have to be open to hearing other sides of the story, even if only to reaffirm that our idea is valid or even better.

“If ever there was a man who debated with another from a desire of knowing the truth of the subject discussed” (Socrates).  I think that this idea adds onto what was introduced in the previous reading about how debates these days are not so much a discussion but an avenue for two sides to hurl “facts”, statistics, and insults at each other with neither side really listening to one another. It’s obviously easier said than done, I know when I debate I sometimes forget that it’s not just about being right it’s also about taking in what the other side has to say. Even if I don’t agree with someone I can undoubtedly learn something from them. Debates would be far more beneficial, especially in the political arena, if people went in with open minds. It’s almost as if politicians are less concerned with the well being of the people and more concerned about being “right”. Like it says in this weeks reading, it’s not necessarily about convincing someone that you are right and they are wrong, but persuading them to believe in some part of what you have to say.  Change doesn’t happen over night, there is always the chance that continued discussion can result in a change of opinion and if not, at least all participants of the discussion are well informed on both sides. It is okay to reach a point of stasis, if all aspects of an idea or viewpoint have been expressed, sometimes people feel strongly in their convictions and there is nothing wrong with that. This is something that is especially important for me to keep in mind, not only when intentionally employing rhetoric but in every day life as well.