elementsofpersuasion

Guerrilla Rhetoric Project

2010-05-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

(click here to go to the project's resource page on this site)

So much of our mindscape is dominated by images and narratives that were
not created with our best interests in mind. Billboards we did not ask for
suffocate our roadways; mass media monopolies feed us unhealthy, overly
processed news; advertisements find their way into the most personal of
spaces, mental and material.

This project takes its shape and spirit from
guerrilla tactics, which recognize that successful campaigns against bohemoth
forces do not try to match up in strength and size, but rather seek out cracks
in the system and exploit them.

Guerrilla forces utilize their smallness; they
use the shadows; they use surprise.

For this project you are asked to use guerrilla tactics in one of two ways:

1) Rename / Reframe a rhetorical element in our everyday surroundings;

2) Inform others on the persuasive forces that are working on them.

Go ahead and rename all the euphemisms that act as placebos, keeping us from
confronting truth. Habitat loss? Clean coal? Smart bombs? Or reveal to
someone how patriotic appeals are used to sell them everything from gum to
war. Or show how an ideograph like “freedom” is often used as a vague
referent charged with emotion but short on precision. Do you find “sound
science” to be a carefully calibrated phrase to undermine the credibility of
climate scientists in general? Show us. Show others.

Mid-term Grading Scale

2010-05-26T14:14:00.000-07:00

Mid-term(ish) Grade Grid

A = 290 - 315

A- = 280 - 289

B+ = 270 - 279

B = 250 - 269

B- = 240 - 249

C+ = 230 - 239

C = 220 - 229

C- = 210 - 219

D = 170 - 209

F = 0 - 169

******************

I'm so sorry that I accidentally said three-fifty instead of three-fifteen today! Total slip of the tongue that had us all confused. My apologies!

Great work everyone ~ a lot of you absolutely tore that test apart!

Keep up the great work...

5.17 ~ Century of the Self

2010-05-18T11:23:00.001-07:00

And just because I got such a kick out of it, here is one of the comments someone left on the survey for this class period:

Sick.

Mid-term Resources

2010-05-09T19:50:00.000-07:00

(click on image to view larger size or right-click to copy)

 RESOURCES for STUDY

Etymology is even cooler than this logo suggests, which is pretty intense.

Visit the Online Etymology Dictionary

(and then look up the etymology of "etymology" because it will be on the test! Shhhh!)

Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric

An excellent source for learning rhetorical figures of speech

"It Figures" over at Figaro Speech Another rich resource for exploring rhetoric figures of speech. It's created and regularly updated by the talented Jay Heinrichs, who wrote Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion.

As far as rhetorical primers go, it's worth its salt. I suggest you pick up a copy to keep sharpening your skills after this class finishes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind: if you can answer everything on the review sheet, you'll do just fine on the test; I promise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3 ~ The iMovie Challenge: Metaphor in 60

2010-05-07T08:54:00.000-07:00

My most sincere and hearty congratulations on tackling the "Metaphor in 60" challenge

with insight and enthusiasm! I'm extremely impressed!

Students were introduced to the iMovie program bootcamp-style. After I showed them four or five of the most basic, fundamental moves, they were charged with creating a movie exactly 60 seconds long. (Not 59 seconds. Not 61 seconds.) To learn how to enact certain maneuvers in a software they had just been exposed to, they had to click around and explore. Trial and error under pressure, in other words.

The goal was to explain the concept of metaphor using footage from the (brilliant, stunning, soul-saving) movie, Stop Making Sense. Provided with clips from songs that rely heavily on metaphors, students got together in groups and collaborated in a way that made me truly proud to be their teacher.

Here's the class-voted winner of our competition:

This Must Be the Place (Naïve Melody)
by The Talking Heads

And you've got to witness this slice of exquisite life!

Remember two important things:

1) The full iMovie tutorial guide is available on Carmen for download.
2) Never for money; always for Love.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

4.28 ~ Burke review, Ideographs, & Critical Rhetoric Video critiques

2010-05-07T08:24:00.000-07:00

Answers to a Burkean Quiz

"A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself [or herself] with B even when their interests are not joined, if s/he assumes they are, or is persuaded to believe so ... [T]wo persons may be identified in terms of some principles they share in common, an 'identification' that does not deny their existence."

“Men seek for vocabularies that will be faithful reflections of reality. To this end they must develop vocabularies that are selections of reality. And any selection of reality must, in certain circumstances, function as a deflection of reality.”

Aristotle's definition of rhetoric = "the faculty of discovering in an any given situation all available means of persuasion."

Quintillian's definition of rhetoric = "Bene dicendi scientia," which means: "Science of speaking well." (Also famous for the definition, "[Rhetoric is] the good man speaking well." Quintillian brought ethics and persuasion close together, suggesting that one of the best ways to be persuasive is to be a genuinely good person.)

"There is an intermediate area of expression that is not wholly deliberate, yet not wholly unconscious. It lies midway between aimless utterance and speech directly purposive."

"You persuade a wo/man only insofar as you can talk his [or her] language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your way with his."

Three key processes of identification:

1) Naming something or someone according to specific properties;

2) Associating with and disassociating from others--suggesting that persons (and ideas or things) share, or do not share, important qualities in common;

3) The product or end result of identifying--the state of being consubstantial with others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes a great group member?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"An ideograph is an ordinary-language term found in political discourse.
It is a high order abstraction representing commitment to a
particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal."

~ Michael Calvin McGee ~

"Human beings are 'conditioned,' not directly to belief and behavior,
but to a vocabulary of concepts that function as guides,
warrants, reasons, or excuses for behavior and belief."

~ Michael Calvin McGee ~

[ the LIBERTY dollar ]

"Such reduction to a simplicity being technically reduction
to a summarizing title or 'GOD-TERM.' When we confront a simplicity
we must forthwith ask ourselves what complexities are subsumed beneath it."

~ Kenneth Burke ~

"No one has ever seen 'equality' strutting up the driveway,
so, if 'equality' exists at all, it has meaning through its specific applications."

~ Michael Calvin McGee ~

*** McGee's essay, "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology" is available on Carmen ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.26 ~ Critical Rhetoric Video

2010-04-26T11:54:00.000-07:00

4.19 ~ Introduction to the Critical Rhetoric video project

2010-04-23T11:21:00.000-07:00

Insight on the Visualization Project generated by you

Importance for a Successful Visualization:

I find this last chart rather illuminating. Think about how these concepts relate to other forms of communication, whether it's a casual email or an academic paper. Like I said, the rhetorical principles we are focusing on with this project are intended to be gateway principles that apply to many other rhetorical situations.

Take the Surveys!

2010-04-17T11:51:00.000-07:00

Click here for the Visualization Project Survey

Click here for the Critical Rhetoric Video Survey

4.14 ~ Burke, Terministic Screens, & Identification

2010-04-16T13:01:00.001-07:00

To better understand Burke, here are a few key points to know:

Language = "symbolic action." (Burke says Beware: Anyone who juxtaposes talking to action is trying to pull one over on you. Speaking is an act. Using symbols that communicate is an act.)

Humans = symbol using (mis-using and abusing) animals.

Rhetoric = Use of symbols to form attitudes or induce actions in other human agents.

It's in A Rhetoric of Motives where Burke explores the concept of identification. His basic argument for using the term: "persuasion" triggers us to look only at explicit, intentional acts of communication, where a rhetor directs to a specific, known audience. This is a very small percentage of the actual persuasion happening. But instead of trying to reframe the term "persuasion," he chooses identification.

He identifies 3 key processes of identification:

1) Naming something or someone according to specific properties;

persons (and ideas or things) share, or do not share, important qualities in common;

2) Associating with and disassociating from others ~ suggesting that persons (and ideas or things) share, or do not share, important qualities in common

3) The product or end result of identifying ~ the state of being consubstantial with others.

(Remember that "consubstantial" can be read as "the state of being identified with" or perhaps, "being in solidarity with" another.)

"[And] often we must think of rhetoric NOT in terms of some one particular address, but as a general body of identifications that owe their convincingness much more to trivial repetition and dull, daily reinforcement than to exceptional rhetorical skill."

In addition to creation of "forms" (where repetition of rhetorical acts develop into patterns and systems, which we soon take for granted; that is, they become normalized), there are two other common maneuvers of identification:

Assumed "We" (insiders)

Antithesis (outsiders / common enemy)

To suggest the gravitas of concepts and how they're employed, we watched portions of the following movies:

- A Class Divided -

- The Milgram Experiment & The Stanford Prison Experiment -

Burn these three Burkean identification processes into your memory:

1) Naming something or someone according to specific properties;

2) Associating with and disassociating from others--suggesting that persons (and ideas or things) share, or do not share, important qualities in common;

3) The product or end result of identifying

4.12 ~ Sophists, Epistemology, and an introduction to Framing

2010-04-12T15:49:00.001-07:00

It often bugged me when every history of rhetoric began with the Greeks. Did the ancient civilizations of China or Egypt find any interest in the intricacies and processes of persuasion? Of course they did. But their socio-political structures didn’t demand a sustained inquiry; we start with the Greeks because of their experiment in Direct Democracy. It befell to you to dispute a claim in court—no outsourcing of duty to a lawyer. (This claim deserves some nuancing, since there were certainly rhetoricians who would help you construct the speech; but nevertheless, you had to be the one to deliver it.)

In addition, the art of speaking (orality) was prized much more than it is today: senators regularly delivered speeches to hundreds of people in the Agora; theatre was a crucial means for entertainment as well as education; and people argued (in the sense of respectful dialogue) in the streets much more readily. The culture of democracy—especially the fact that is was a direct democracy—created the climate and necessity for a sustained and systematic inquiry into the nature and function of rhetoric.

The sophists played a key role in the cultivation of knowledge about rhetoric. They were itinerant teachers—peripatetic pedagogues, roving rhetoricians—who would instruct you on how to influence other for a price. (But don’t think ‘em necessarily more greedy than Plato & Co., who operated with a “gift culture”—the philosophers were doing just fine.) The sophists came from outside of Athens (which didn’t help their credibility) and had seen how other cultures operate. This led them to question cultural claims that suggested “this is the only way to do it and the right way to do it.” Their travels and observations played a role in the development of their philosophy of relativism, which held that truths, beliefs, and behaviors can only be understood in a context—that there’s always a frame of reference operating that organizes meaning according to that particular society at that particular time.

The questioning of absolute truths and morality (“this is THE way to do things”) didn’t exactly win them friends. Plato especially held a distaste for the sophists, as he was developing a philosophy of universalism, which held that there are truths that unchangeable and eternal. No matter who you are, where you’re at in history, certain things are True. One way to think of these two positions is that Plato believed in Truth (with a capital ‘T’) while the sophists believe in truth(s) (with a lowercase ‘t,’ since truth, they argued, may change over time or be different for folks living elsewhere.

--------------------------------------------

** Disclaimer **

These very important (and by that I mean influential historically and culturally) views are presented here in a rather reductive format. But despite the black and white presentation, please keep your active and inquisitive eye at work: there are shades of grey everywhere.

--------------------------------------------

You will recall that epistemology is the study of knowledge. It asks,

What is knowledge?
What can we know?
How do we know that we know?
What are the limits of knowledge?

As mentioned, the sophists largely advocated a relativist epistemology, arguing that we do not and cannot have access to knowledge or truth that is disassociated from perception. (“Perception” in this case can be understood as “perspective,” or as a “frame of reference.”) All our knowledge is filtered through sense perception and language, which they contend are flawed channels of reception. (We know our eyes “play tricks” on us, for instance, and we know that words are interpreted differently by people.)

So, while the sophists would say that 100% certain truth (Truth) is unavailable, we can gain and use probable truth.
Think about it like this: We can’t be absolutely certain the sun will “rise” tomorrow. But we can be pretty damn sure. It’s highly likely, no?

Probable knowledge might as well be synonymous with “debatable knowledge.” Recall the argumentation clinic we had: we can offer reasons—some better than others—for our claims and through the back-n-forth of asking questions and offering reasons we can “advance” our knowledge in certain areas.

For the sophists, probable knowledge and a relativist epistemology suggested that “there’s always another side” to a claim or argument. One of their pedagogical methods—and one of ours—is to “hear the other side.”

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM = Hear the Other Side.

One of the oldest texts in rhetorical studies is the “Dissoi Logoi” (literal translation: “Different Words”). As a pedagogical text, it asked you to understand the topic more comprehensively and deeply by seeing it from the other side (which was often your “opponents” side). So, while death may be considered bad for those who die or the family they leave behind, it’s good for the undertakers and grave-diggers, who feed their family with that income.

All this emphasis on contextual, situated truth and the process of receiving and distributing knowledge led the sophists to place great emphasis on language. They argued this:

What we know is inextricably bound up with how we communicate.

In other words, there is a fundamental connection between discourse and knowledge and therefore, discourse and truth. Or, put differently yet again: what may be said and how it can be said cannot be disentangled.

As I mentioned in class, I often think of my sister here. After years of saying to her, “What you say isn’t as important as how you say it,” I’ve come to see what the sophists mean: you can’t separate that “what” from any possible “how.” You’re always selecting a particular way of expressing something out of a wide variety of options. There is no recourse to a stable, central, neutral way of expression.

Today these ideas are discussed in terms of Framing.

We all operate with frames of reference—organizing schematas that order and hierarchize information—and these frames of reference shape the way we “see” the world. Frames allow for the rapid mapping and understanding of information—but in a particular way. Let’s consider an example:

“Tax Relief” triggers a frame that includes an implicit reference to oppression of some type, and also includes then an “oppressor,” a “victim,” and a “reliever.” When we hear this phrase a particular frame of reference is called forth—a string of associated content that we flesh out almost automatically (that is to say, without much critical reflection.”
Now take “habitat loss.” This term doesn’t trigger a frame that has such active agents like those in “tax relief.” What would happen if we changed it to “habitat theft?” Now our frame of reference includes a “thief” and prompts us to inquire who that thief is. But “habitat theft” isn’t a phrase we hear at all, is it? Why do you think “habitat loss” is the common term?

These everyday phrases—terms and colloquialisms that are common to everyday speech—are repeated with such frequency that we tend to forget their constructedness. They become familiar terms. They become codified within the popular vernacular. And because of that we will often forego what frames of reference they trigger. But the frames are always there, asking us to see things one way and not another.

Give consideration to the words you choose. They shape the way your see the world; and because they shape how we think—and what we think—they shape the principles we structure our actions on. The words we choose ultimately play a large role in structuring our actions. That’s the lesson for the day.

4.7 ~ Argumentation Clinic & Fundamentals of Informal Logic

2010-04-08T07:17:00.000-07:00

The term argumentation has a bad wrap. If someone says, “we got into an argument” or a mother says to her child, “Don’t argue with me!” it's suggested that arguments are unpleasant, adversarial affairs, filled with anger or perhaps even obstinate refusal to hear the other side.

For much of the term’s history, though, argument was viewed as a type of dialogue. This lecture uses the term “argument” quite differently than the understanding outlined above; let’s think of argumentation as a fundamentally a cooperative affair. In addition to taking a more positive view of argument, where we respectfully investigate and question positions with informal logic, let’s get some basics down:

Distinction between formal & informal logic:

formal reasoning involves a set of symbols and is heavily involved with mathematics; it is much more strict and formulaic
informal reasoning is that we use in everyday conversation; it’s fast and somewhat loose logic, but that which we operate with on a daily basis.

Some key aspects of argumentation:

takes place under conditions of uncertainty (we’re not sure what to do, what to make of it, or what meaning to ascribe to it)
moves from what is know to unknown (builds on strong-enough probabilities to guide us further
involves a justification for claims
often involves dialectical reasoning, which can be loosely translated as “a thesis meets an antithesis and forms a synthesis; that synthesis is a new thesis that meets an antithesis and so on.” More informally, many consider dialectic to mean the principled back and forth involved with a productive question-and-answer session

One definition of argumentation could be “the exercise of reason giving.” (This is a favorite of David Zarefsky, professor of Communication at Northwestern University.)

Or, if you listened closely to the Monty Python skit, another way to define argumentation is: “a collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition—it’s an intellectual process.” The implicit point here is that of inference: the process of affirming one proposition on the basis of other propositions. Because we’re working with probability, an inference partly implies a leap of faith in moving from one proposition to another.

Another definition: argumentation is the combination of justifications with claims within rhetorical situations.

Justifications are:

different from proof (in the formal, mathematical sense)
particular to an audience (what works some might not for others, depending on many factors such as cultural values, education level, etc.)
provisional and subject to change (in light of new information or arguments)
based on degrees of strength, ranging from plausible to highly probable

Now, before we say anything else, a disclaimer on argument models: thy are frequently used in teaching logic, but they often seem weak, unusable, or boring. This may be because argument models are instruments that are most helpful in identifying and analyzing arguments and their components—not necessarily in constructing them. They “abstract out” a lot of features of everyday, lived discourse (facial cues, body language, intonation, emphasis, etc.), in addition to suggesting linearity in an argument’s progress—running directly and smoothly from evidence to claim. Obviously, this runs counter to many of our experiences. So, argument models have their place and use; but understanding their fundamentals can really help you make connections and see the logic in everyday arguments more easily.

In classical understanding, there are two primary types of reasoning: deduction and induction.

Deduction’s etymology means, “to lead down” (think about when you “deduct” numbers and connect that to “deducing something”).

The syllogism is a key model within deduction: Major premise + minor premise => Conclusion/Claim.

In categorical syllogisms this is demonstrated as: Class => sub-class => particular

EX: All men are mortal; Keith Richards is a man; Keith Richards is mortal.
Now with cues: (Because) all men are mortal (and since) Keith Richards is a man (then therefore) he’s mortal.

(thanks to Dr. Wheeler and his helpful website for this chart)

Induction’s etymology means, “to lead into” and can be understood as the movement from particulars to generalizations, or “inducing the universal from the particular.” This form of reasoning takes a variety of experiences, evaluates the relationship between them and makes a generalization based on this. A lot of scientific reasoning is a highly formalized and rigorous type of inductive reasoning. A lot of everyday reasoning (and a lot of our fallacious reasoning) is based on this form: “I’ve known people like her and I can tell you that __________,” could be considered a loose version of the inductive process. In this case a set of particulars gather from observations were joined together to make a generalization on which further propositions were made.

The enthymeme is typically defined as “in the mind,” but more accurately it is translated as “in the spirit,” which the Greeks located in the gut. The enthymeme is a syllogism with some parts missing—a string of logic in which aspects are elided, assumed, or asked to be filled in by the audience.

Take the general form of reasoning: Because Z and because Y, then therefore X. Many times people only offer one reason for their claim: “Y, therefore X.” They may not offer up evidence or reasoning for “Y,” either because it’s obvious or assumed, whether rightly or wrongly. To omit the premises is to offer them as given or true enough to proceed.

In a maneuver the Greeks loved, the conclusion can be dropped, so that the audience fills it in: “We all know ‘Z’ and we all know ‘Y’...” By combining the two premises and prompting the audience to get ‘X’ on their own, it’s often the case that the audience will feel like they’ve participated in the argument. This is precisly where it gains its rhetorical efficacy: by completing the enthymeme, they may feel invested in the claim and more likely to accept it, because to deny it would be to deny a conclusion that they came to “on their own.”

This means that for us savvy-argument-decoders, we have to fill in the implicit connectors (like, “because,” “since,” “and so”) and search out the evidence for certain claims. This spotting of assumptions (premises) is a crucial tool for effective and ethical reasoning.

4.5 ~ Introduction to Visualization Project

2010-04-05T19:15:00.000-07:00

WHY DO IT?

Persuasive people are those that know how to present their information in strategic fashion. Instead of thinking of oneself as a "rhetor," which is a rather clunky and somewhat antiquated term, let's try to think of ourselves as information designers--architects of argument.

A good path for cultivating that perspective is working with images. This route also makes sense given our current rhetorical climate, where images and icons dominate. We're a society of screens: our music players show the album cover, the back of our cars' headrests have televisions, and YouTube...well, don't even get me started on the consequences of having a participatory culture based around video. The point is that knowing how to skillfully combine text with image, claims with evidence, and aesthetics with information is an increasingly important for our age.

WHAT IS IT?

Argument mapping is the process of showing the infrastructure (or, if you'll excuse a bad pun, the "infostructure) of the series of claims that constitute an argument. It reveals the logic that all-too-often goes unarticulated, illustrating the relationships among the claims, evidence, assumptions, and/or qualifying statements. For this assignment, definitely feel free to include rebuttals (complete with their own mapped logic). Weak arguments frequently masquerade as tough-guys; this project can expose them their logic for what it's worth. It can also be an opportunity for taking a superior argument, but a complex one, and showing how it works so that others will be persuaded through your cogent presentation.

Data visualization may be thought of as a translation--taking raw quantitative statistics and putting them into a (visual) language that's immediately intelligible. We know that statistics carry persuasive power, since they're viewed as objective facts, so we use that aspect of the culture of our advantage. But stats & facts are useless unless they're put into a context and used in the service of making a point.

HOW DO I DO IT?

Well, the first step is always to get interested--which is to say, invested. Find your personal connection to the project and figure out how to make this work for you. But for more detailed instructions and suggestions, check out the "step-by-step" guides that are on Carmen and on this site on the projects separate page (the tab is right below the site's banner).

WHEN IS IT DUE?

By Friday, April 23rd. You'll turn it in to a Carmen dropbox by 5 pm in either .jpeg or .pdf format. Please plan your time accordingly--this project is not one you can wait until the last minute on.

3.31 ~ Rhetorical Perspectives

2010-03-31T17:41:00.000-07:00

In the chapter we read from Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Rhetoric, he writes, "Any confident claim about the importance of rhetorical studies requires as a first step some sorting of diverse definitions [even though] No one definition will ever pin rhetoric down.* Although there are a lot of definitions, there are a few macro perspectives that they tend to fall into: rhetoric as tool; as faculty of mind; as epistemic.

But first, let me point out that one of Booth's main arguments in this piece is that any successful definition of rhetoric must include dangerous/deceitful/obfuscating rhetorics alongside those rhetorics that promote truth and well-being. Put differently, if we're going to study rhetoric with any seriousness, we must first take note that fascists use rhetoric, too--not just the good guys. (In fact, they're often far better at it.) Booth is suggesting that we recognize the expansiveness of rhetoric--from everyday communication to presidential speeches.

Rhetoric as Tool:

The "rhetoric as tool" perspective is the result of separating truth & knowledge from rhetoric. For Plato, [T]ruth is immutable, eternal, and external from human affairs; in other words: truths are timeless and we can't change them, but it's possible to discover them through certain philosophical/scientific means. As a tool, rhetoric is often conceived of as:

Independent from truth/knowledge
Subservient to truth
At its best, it's a tool

Figured sometimes as a servant whose duty is to make truth more palatable to the masses

Plato's skepticism and derision of rhetoric sets an agenda for subsequent studies. For example, John Locke perceived rhetoric as the "harlot of the arts," which reinforces a style VS substance dichotomy (and you can guess which side rhetoric falls on). [Harlot: A Revealing Look at the Arts of Persuasion, by the way, is f**king awesome journal to check out.] Francis Bacon also supported the separation of rhetoric and truth, upholding the Enlightenment argument that pure, logical reasoning is the best/only way toward truth.

Rhetoric as Faculty of Mind:

Aristotle, a student of Plato, spurred a new line of inquiry about rhetoric as he placed greater emphasis on probable knowledge, instead of incontestable, universal knowledge. Probable, contingent truths--the kind we deal with everyday--are a necessary and unavoidable element of life. And since we can't know for absolutely sure whether these ideas/claims are right, persuasion comes into play, as we try to argue for certain views and against others. This focus led Aristotle to define rhetoric as "the faculty of discovering in any given means all available means of persuasion." Such a position catalyzed the exploration of audience psychologies, especially those of emotion. (If you're interested in finding out more, Aristotle's Rhetoric is a good place to start.)

Try practicing a rhetorical mindset every once and awhile, looking for the available means of persuasion in a given situation. Approaching a professor about having missed class? What are the available means of persuasion? Trying to make a political point with a contentious friend? What are the available means of persuasion? This does not mean you have enact all of them; it's about knowing options in order to choose the best path. We have to cultivate a sensitivity to rhetoric if we want to expand our range of choices.

Rhetoric as Epistemic:

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Think of it as an area of study that asks these two questions:

What do we know?
How do we know what we know?

To claim that rhetoric is epistemic is to claim that the process of coming to know something is bound up with how it was communicated. This may seem like a "well, duh" statement--and such a reaction has a lot of truth to it. It seems really intuitive when stated like this. But there are important consequences to consider if you adopt the perspective that there is a fundamental connection between discourse and knowledge.

Mull on this: if the knowledge and truth you base your values and behavior on came to you through human communication (that is to say, rhetoric), then rhetoric is a constitutive force in shaping your reality. The words we choose to describe and explore reality shape our perspective of it. The words we think with determine how we see others, ourselves, and the world. These words and thoughts have a direct impact on our behavior. Rhetoric shapes people, buildings, and societies--its power should never be underestimated. If you're interested in exploring epistemic rhetoric further (in the academic vein), I've uploaded to the Carmen site a short exposition, "Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric," under the 'Suggested Readings' portion.

Other important points:

* Be sure to take note of the definitions offered in the presentation above (Plato, Bacon, Aristotle, Ratcliffe, Fumaroli). And if you need one more, take my pocket-sized definition: rhetoric is the process of naming and framing reality. Someone told me that all of these definitions will find their way onto the mid-term exam.

Mentioned/Presented in class:

The segment on bottled water comes from Annie Leonard's project, The Story of Stuff. Powerful, incisive arguments delivered in a masterfully cogent style.

Capt. Charles Moore gives a brief, but compelling talk on the plastic filling our oceans.

Selections from Friedrich Nietzsche's “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense” is now up on Carmen.

"Climategate" -- the hacking of climate scientists' email account to obtain proof that they're applying rhetoric to their work (gasp!).

3.29 ~ Introduction to Course

2010-03-29T15:44:00.001-07:00