Common places and Types of “Proof”
I. Common places have two different meanings: (1) specific procedure used to generate arguments, and (2) statements that circulate within ideologies.
A. Crowley and Hawhee discuss ideology in terms of “words about ideas” or “study of ideas.”
Ideology may also be defined as “a pattern or set of ideas, assumptions, beliefs, values, or interpretations of the world by which a culture or group operates” (Foss 291).
B. Ernest Bormann argues that we can discover ideologies and common places through understanding the ways people symbolically converge.
1. Symbolic Convergence is based on two assumptions:
a. Communication creates reality; symbolic forms are the organs of reality.
b. Individuals’ meanings converge to create a shared reality.
2. People who do not have a shared reality can literally create a common culture through symbolic forms, taking shape in social “dramas” or “stories” or “values.”
C. Commonplaces embrace the way we reason in relation to specific circumstances as well as what communal assumptions guide that reasoning.
II. There are three types of commonplaces according to Aristotle that are generalizable across contexts; Conjecture (past and future fact); Degree (whether a thing is greater or smaller than another thing); Possibility (what is and is not possible).
A. Conjecture: (past and future fact); rhetors use this type of reasoning to talk and write about the past in relation to what is happening in the present or what may be possible in the future.
1. Conjecture thus deals with:
a. What exists.
b. What does not exist.
c. The size or extent of what exists.
d. How things used to be (past).
e. How things will be in the future.
B. Degree: the common topic of greater/lesser--magnitude: “contemporary rhetors often try to establish that their position is good, just, honorable, or expedient” phrased in terms of its opposite values “what is bad, unjust, dishonorable, or inexpedient” (124).
1. Degree thus deals with:
a. What is greater than the mean or norm.
b. What is lesser than the mean or norm.
c. What is relatively greater than something else.
d. What is relatively lesser than something else.
e. What is good, just, beautiful, honorable, enjoyable, etc.
f. What is better, more just, etc.
g. What is less good, less just, etc.
h. What is good, etc. for all persons.
i. What is good, etc. for few persons or groups.
j. What has been better, etc. in the past.
k. What will be better, etc. in the future.
C. Possibility: the common topic of what is possible/impossible: “rhetors resort to the topic of possible/impossible in order to establish that change either is or isn’t possible, now or in the future” (Hawhee and Crowley 127).
1. Possibility thus deals with:
a. What is possible.
b. What is impossible.
c. What is more or less possible.
d. What is possible in the future.
e. What is impossible in the future.
f. What was possible or impossible in the past.
D. Sue Rahr editorial http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010656223_guest04rahr.html
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Weekly Writing Two
Weekly Writing #2 (1-2 pages): summarizing arguments and positions
Choose one article for this paper (opinion piece, journal article, blogs, documentary, news coverage):
1) Write a 100-word summary of the author’s argument, using as neutral language as possible. 2) Write a 100-word analysis, reading as a believer; suspend your skepticism, try to see things from the author’s point of view, attribute good faith to his/her motives, and try to hear what he/she is saying. 3) Write a 100-word analysis, reading as a doubter; bring all your natural skepticism to bear, questioning his/her values, assumptions, motives, and evidence (the common places/topics are helpful, here). 4) Finally, write a 100-word analysis of the rhetorical situation. Who is the author? What needs prompted the author to write the article/essay? To what conversations is he/she responding? What constraints does he/she write under? How does your knowledge of the author and the publication affect your reading of the essay?
Please post your paper to your blog and send me a copy by January 15.
Choose one article for this paper (opinion piece, journal article, blogs, documentary, news coverage):
1) Write a 100-word summary of the author’s argument, using as neutral language as possible. 2) Write a 100-word analysis, reading as a believer; suspend your skepticism, try to see things from the author’s point of view, attribute good faith to his/her motives, and try to hear what he/she is saying. 3) Write a 100-word analysis, reading as a doubter; bring all your natural skepticism to bear, questioning his/her values, assumptions, motives, and evidence (the common places/topics are helpful, here). 4) Finally, write a 100-word analysis of the rhetorical situation. Who is the author? What needs prompted the author to write the article/essay? To what conversations is he/she responding? What constraints does he/she write under? How does your knowledge of the author and the publication affect your reading of the essay?
Please post your paper to your blog and send me a copy by January 15.
Notes for January 7
What and Where is Argument?
I. Rhetorical argument for Wayne Booth in his book Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent: “the art of discovering warrantable beliefs and improving those beliefs in shared discourse” (xiii).
II. For Thomas Hollihan and Kevin Baaske in Arguments and Arguing Booth’s definition creates two “senses” or objectives of argument:
1. Argument is about effective decision making, and
2. Argument is about the achievement of social harmony.
III. So what makes “good argument”?
A. According to Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell in their book Aims of Argument: “argument is mature reasoning”—(1) defending not the first position you might take on an issue but the best position, determined through open-minded inquiry, and (2) providing reasons for holding that position that can earn the respect of an opposing audience.
B. Wayne Brockreide’s six principles regarding the scope and function of argument in “Where is Argument?”
1. One: Brockreide states that argument involves “an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or to the reinforcement of an old one” (10).
2. Two: Argument involves a perceived rationale to support that leap (10).
3. Three: Argument involves a choice among two or more competing claims (10-11).
4. Four: Argument is a regulation of uncertainty (11).
5. Five: Argument involves a willingness to risk confrontation of a claim with peers, and Six: is a frame of reference shared optimally (11).
IV. There are different ways to put together arguments, designed around particular goals (Roen, Glau, and Maid, The Brief McGraw-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life).
A. Writing to Convince:
B. Writing to Evaluate:
C. Writing about a Creative Work:
D. Writing to Explain Causes and Effects:
E. Writing to Solve Problems:
I. Rhetorical argument for Wayne Booth in his book Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent: “the art of discovering warrantable beliefs and improving those beliefs in shared discourse” (xiii).
II. For Thomas Hollihan and Kevin Baaske in Arguments and Arguing Booth’s definition creates two “senses” or objectives of argument:
1. Argument is about effective decision making, and
2. Argument is about the achievement of social harmony.
III. So what makes “good argument”?
A. According to Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell in their book Aims of Argument: “argument is mature reasoning”—(1) defending not the first position you might take on an issue but the best position, determined through open-minded inquiry, and (2) providing reasons for holding that position that can earn the respect of an opposing audience.
B. Wayne Brockreide’s six principles regarding the scope and function of argument in “Where is Argument?”
1. One: Brockreide states that argument involves “an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or to the reinforcement of an old one” (10).
2. Two: Argument involves a perceived rationale to support that leap (10).
3. Three: Argument involves a choice among two or more competing claims (10-11).
4. Four: Argument is a regulation of uncertainty (11).
5. Five: Argument involves a willingness to risk confrontation of a claim with peers, and Six: is a frame of reference shared optimally (11).
IV. There are different ways to put together arguments, designed around particular goals (Roen, Glau, and Maid, The Brief McGraw-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life).
A. Writing to Convince:
B. Writing to Evaluate:
C. Writing about a Creative Work:
D. Writing to Explain Causes and Effects:
E. Writing to Solve Problems:
First Exercise
In a single paragraph, first summarize briefly (in a couple of sentences) what argument authors Graff and Birkenstein make about academic writing in the introduction of their text, They Say/I Say; then summarize very briefly (again, in a couple of sentences) what you take my argument to be about rhetoric in my Course Description of CMJR 320; and finally, in a few sentences, discuss what overlap might exist between their argument about academic writing and my argument about rhetoric.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Weekly Writing One
For this first essay, in one to three pages apply the four rhetorical tenets to Michelle Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention Address. What is her advice to her audience? What kinds of stylistic choices does she make, and what is the impact of these choices? Who is her audience and what are their concerns? What are the needs of the audience that bring her speech "into being?" This first writing is due Friday, January 8 by 6 p.m., posted to your blog.
Here is the link for Michelle Obama's speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/michelleobama2008dnc.htm.
Here is the link for Michelle Obama's speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/michelleobama2008dnc.htm.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sample Questions for Persuasion/CMJR 350
Sample Questions
1. In Woodward and Denton’s chapter on the “The Advocate in an Open Society” they discuss the importance of public opinion.
Many Sophists believed that some questions of public dispute were not solvable by application of rigorous reasoning; they were better determined by appeals to public opinion. For instance, the question of who would be most qualified to lead a government could not be settled by reference to one single standard. There is a range of acceptable options based on the specific interests and priorities of different people. One leader may be better for one group but not another. On policy issues, “good” solutions may change as public attitudes change. (31)
Think about the above quote in light of the recent town hall meetings held on health care reform. Most meetings have been peaceful, but many have not. Take a look at the following article regarding New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone: http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_reform_town_hall_n.html. What do you think about the health care reform debate? Should there be room for public opinion on this debate or should policy decisions be left to our political leaders?
2. In chapter one of the course text Woodward and Denton note characteristics of the persuasive process (pp. 14-18). Woodward and Denton suggest that “Persuasion is Difficult,” “Persuasion Outcomes are not very Predictable,” and “Even Minimal Effects Can be Important.” In light of the recent world track championships where Caster Semenya, a South African female runner, was subjected to “gender” testing after winning the gold in the 800 meters, what is important about gender distinctions in sports competition? Take a look at the following article on Semenya and comment on her performance of femininity: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Embattled-track-star-Caster-Semenya-gets-new-coa?urn=oly,187999. What are the minimal effects of her appearance on the cover of You magazine? How might some resist Semenya’s gender performance?
3. Over the last few years there has been a steady increase of interest in food: cooking shows, food magazines, food blogs, recipe books, and food movies (e.g., Julie & Julia; noting Julia Child’s influence). If we are to consider Barthes claim that the rhetoric of the image is a “re-presentation, which is to say ultimately resurrection” (33) of meaning related to lived experience, then what is it that fascination with food imagery “re-presents” and “resurrects” in our lives? Think about this question in light of your own individual response to food imagery as well as what food might illuminate about communal and national identity. Here is the website to food network to give you an idea of the imagery: http://www.foodnetwork.com/.
1. In Woodward and Denton’s chapter on the “The Advocate in an Open Society” they discuss the importance of public opinion.
Many Sophists believed that some questions of public dispute were not solvable by application of rigorous reasoning; they were better determined by appeals to public opinion. For instance, the question of who would be most qualified to lead a government could not be settled by reference to one single standard. There is a range of acceptable options based on the specific interests and priorities of different people. One leader may be better for one group but not another. On policy issues, “good” solutions may change as public attitudes change. (31)
Think about the above quote in light of the recent town hall meetings held on health care reform. Most meetings have been peaceful, but many have not. Take a look at the following article regarding New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone: http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_reform_town_hall_n.html. What do you think about the health care reform debate? Should there be room for public opinion on this debate or should policy decisions be left to our political leaders?
2. In chapter one of the course text Woodward and Denton note characteristics of the persuasive process (pp. 14-18). Woodward and Denton suggest that “Persuasion is Difficult,” “Persuasion Outcomes are not very Predictable,” and “Even Minimal Effects Can be Important.” In light of the recent world track championships where Caster Semenya, a South African female runner, was subjected to “gender” testing after winning the gold in the 800 meters, what is important about gender distinctions in sports competition? Take a look at the following article on Semenya and comment on her performance of femininity: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Embattled-track-star-Caster-Semenya-gets-new-coa?urn=oly,187999. What are the minimal effects of her appearance on the cover of You magazine? How might some resist Semenya’s gender performance?
3. Over the last few years there has been a steady increase of interest in food: cooking shows, food magazines, food blogs, recipe books, and food movies (e.g., Julie & Julia; noting Julia Child’s influence). If we are to consider Barthes claim that the rhetoric of the image is a “re-presentation, which is to say ultimately resurrection” (33) of meaning related to lived experience, then what is it that fascination with food imagery “re-presents” and “resurrects” in our lives? Think about this question in light of your own individual response to food imagery as well as what food might illuminate about communal and national identity. Here is the website to food network to give you an idea of the imagery: http://www.foodnetwork.com/.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Sample Questions for Communication Rights and Law
1. Alexander Meiklejohn argues that political speech is what maintains an open and free society, but we as a “people” must be determined to preserve not only the right to speak, but also actively engage in all that the “speaking” forum demands. In Meiklejohn’s words:
But a more important point—which we Americans do not so readily recognize—is that of the intellectual difficulties which are inherent in the making and administering of this political program of ours. We do not see how baffling, even to the point of desperation, is the task of using our minds, to which we are summoned by our plan of government. That plan is not intellectually simple. Its victories are chiefly won, not by the carnage of battle, but by sweat and agony of the mind” (10).
If there is general agreement that people pursue pleasure instead of political debate (and the two may not be separate spheres, such as with The Daily Show), where do we find the “agony of the mind” in our society today?
2.Martin Redish argues that freedom of speech has both an intrinsic value: helping individuals engage the process of self-actualization, and an instrumental value: freedom of speech produces marketplaces for ideas, political dialogue, and human creation and innovation. Ultimately, under Redish’s theory any form of pornographic or violent speech must be afforded First Amendment protection because this speech may help an individual in the process of “self-actualization.” Do you agree with what seems like an absolutist individualistic stance?
3. In chapter three of our text there are two landmark court decisions establishing precedence around “danger” in relation to political speech: Schenck v. U.S. and Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Schenck case establishes the “clear-and-present danger” test, which requires that one “must wait until a real danger can be identified” (Tedford and Herbeck 50) before punishing speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio requires that speech actually incite “illegal conduct which is both imminent and likely to occur” (50). In other words there must be direct links between the words spoken and the “harm” produced. What do we do with speech that is not directly linked to action, but creates an environment that perhaps promotes harm? We can take for example the many horror films proliferating in our theaters glorifying violence. For example, the recent film The Last House on the Left, displays an egregious amount of violence, specifically against young women. Whether or not people like or even see this movie is not the point, it is the fact that this kind of movie is produced and expected to make money that speaks more broadly about “harm” in today’s society. What is your take?
But a more important point—which we Americans do not so readily recognize—is that of the intellectual difficulties which are inherent in the making and administering of this political program of ours. We do not see how baffling, even to the point of desperation, is the task of using our minds, to which we are summoned by our plan of government. That plan is not intellectually simple. Its victories are chiefly won, not by the carnage of battle, but by sweat and agony of the mind” (10).
If there is general agreement that people pursue pleasure instead of political debate (and the two may not be separate spheres, such as with The Daily Show), where do we find the “agony of the mind” in our society today?
2.Martin Redish argues that freedom of speech has both an intrinsic value: helping individuals engage the process of self-actualization, and an instrumental value: freedom of speech produces marketplaces for ideas, political dialogue, and human creation and innovation. Ultimately, under Redish’s theory any form of pornographic or violent speech must be afforded First Amendment protection because this speech may help an individual in the process of “self-actualization.” Do you agree with what seems like an absolutist individualistic stance?
3. In chapter three of our text there are two landmark court decisions establishing precedence around “danger” in relation to political speech: Schenck v. U.S. and Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Schenck case establishes the “clear-and-present danger” test, which requires that one “must wait until a real danger can be identified” (Tedford and Herbeck 50) before punishing speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio requires that speech actually incite “illegal conduct which is both imminent and likely to occur” (50). In other words there must be direct links between the words spoken and the “harm” produced. What do we do with speech that is not directly linked to action, but creates an environment that perhaps promotes harm? We can take for example the many horror films proliferating in our theaters glorifying violence. For example, the recent film The Last House on the Left, displays an egregious amount of violence, specifically against young women. Whether or not people like or even see this movie is not the point, it is the fact that this kind of movie is produced and expected to make money that speaks more broadly about “harm” in today’s society. What is your take?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
