Rhetorical Criticism in the Mainstream Press!
As a student and teacher of rhetoric and argumentation, I am often disheartened that most people think of rhetoric as "mere" rhetoric, that is, the gloss we put on what we are saying. Other synonyms include, "spin," "flourish," "decoration," etc. In other words, rhetoric is something apart from the "reality" of comments and policy.
For students of rhetoric, this is plain nonsense, because everything we do has a persuasive lens to it, and is thus rhetorical. You cannot escape rhetoric, not even in the sciences. Whenever you invoke language, or symbols, you are invoking rhetoric. Because we cannot have any kind of mutual understanding without persuasion.
Thus, it is gratifying for me when I actually see rhetorical criticism at work in mainstream journalism. All journalism, like all politics, are rhetorical. But its kind of rare you see real rhetorical study at work when you read journalism.
Well, AP writer Jennifer Loven does just that in this recent piece about how President Bush has more and more relied on a particular kind of rhetoric: the strawman argument. I got this article from Escheton. The problem with the strawman argument is that it is an argumentative fallacy. As the textbook for my students in my debate class states (Freeley and Steinberg's Argumentation and Debate), "The fallacy of the 'straw argument' occurs when advocates set up an issue merely so they can knock it down. Sometimes they attack a minor argument of their opponents and claim that they have refuted the whole case. Or they might refute an argument their opponents did not advance and claim that they have thus refuted their opponent's position."
In other words, the strawman fallacy is when someone takes the weakest possible counter-argument to one's own and makes it more representative than it really is. The Bush administration has become experts at this. So have the pundits at Fox News. My job as an instructor of rhetoric and argument is to expose this fallacy the best I can. And so I am now. Read the article and decide for yourself. Here.
For students of rhetoric, this is plain nonsense, because everything we do has a persuasive lens to it, and is thus rhetorical. You cannot escape rhetoric, not even in the sciences. Whenever you invoke language, or symbols, you are invoking rhetoric. Because we cannot have any kind of mutual understanding without persuasion.
Thus, it is gratifying for me when I actually see rhetorical criticism at work in mainstream journalism. All journalism, like all politics, are rhetorical. But its kind of rare you see real rhetorical study at work when you read journalism.
Well, AP writer Jennifer Loven does just that in this recent piece about how President Bush has more and more relied on a particular kind of rhetoric: the strawman argument. I got this article from Escheton. The problem with the strawman argument is that it is an argumentative fallacy. As the textbook for my students in my debate class states (Freeley and Steinberg's Argumentation and Debate), "The fallacy of the 'straw argument' occurs when advocates set up an issue merely so they can knock it down. Sometimes they attack a minor argument of their opponents and claim that they have refuted the whole case. Or they might refute an argument their opponents did not advance and claim that they have thus refuted their opponent's position."
In other words, the strawman fallacy is when someone takes the weakest possible counter-argument to one's own and makes it more representative than it really is. The Bush administration has become experts at this. So have the pundits at Fox News. My job as an instructor of rhetoric and argument is to expose this fallacy the best I can. And so I am now. Read the article and decide for yourself. Here.
posted by cc at
6:09 PM
2 Comments:
My first reaction, which was comfirmed within the article itself, was this is nothing more than a thrumped up form of double talk, is commonly attributed to Texans as a whole. I will be the first to say I am trending into unfamiliar waters here, so please pardon my ignorance if it is there. Not to mention my grammar, which has always been miserable. I still don't know how I survived college.
The perception I have that bothers me the most is the use of this tact by the President. This form of rhetoric makes the President appear simular to the image I had of Mc Carthy (did I spell that right?) as I learned during the "Communist Witch Hunt" module of Mr. Bakun's history class. Do anything to support yourself, even if you are wrong, you can figure out a way to make yourself right, as long as you have power and favoritism.
The twisting or misguiding of the logic of another's arguement or opinion to achieve a desired end, does not strike me as an effective way to communicate. It appears to be a means to dodge or misdirect accountability for one's action rather than to support it. Basing your arguement on a vague implication based on your opponent's opinion, leaves you entirely at the mercy of your opponent, and to the public's perception of the opponent's stance. Both of these can be dynamic and fluid, thus leaving the very foundation of your logic free to be shattered.
Trying to reduce the influence an opponent has on your stance by removing their identity, ie "some" or "others", can only further damage you more by making you appear immature and weak. When one skirts the issue of accountability for one's self while one questions the others, makes you appear immature and weak, like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "They made me do it."
No one has ever won a defensive war and who wants to have the image of immaturity in a society strife with gossip and appearances? There is a reason I do not care for politics, but I had enough sense to glean information off the discussions between my father and brother to understand that things are not what they seem and hard questions are needed. Blind faith kills.
I have showed enough of my inadequency with the art of communicating in the written form. Just some of the thoughts running through my mind here. Bro, the following statement,"everything we do has a persuasive lens to it, and is thus rhetorical" has done more to help me understand your studies than any other statement you have ever made. Maybe something finally clicked here.
Way to go, Bro! Great comment (spelling mistakes, aside! :) ). Your analysis is dead on. But there is a reason why these folks use this kind of tactic: it works. Why? Because there are too many people out there who simply aren't educated enough or have the critical thinking skills to see through this. That's my job: to try and ameliorate this as much as I can, one student at a time.
Your McCarthy comment makes sense. The fact is, this administration has made deceit and deflection the modus operandi of its existence. They commit lie, after lie, after lie, and then lie that they never said those things. We need more folks like you to be able to see through these things so we can give them the boot and hopefully restore some normalcy in the way this country's politics are going these days.
Post a Comment
<< Home