P155 Final

ideology:

"The ideas, values, perceptions, and understandings that are known to members of a society and that guide their behaviors" - a bunch of ideas that hang together as kind of like a spiderweb of ideas. -ideology acts as a network of interrelated ideas and ideals that support each other -so it is all of the nodes connected together as a NETWORK (where as ideographs are the individual nodes.. so for speech four you want to identify the key node on the big web and pull it out) -dangers: its subconscious power operates underneath and behind our conscious decisions. It develops a power that can overrule our rational capacities

To test the sign ask:

"can the sign be found within the thing?" "is there a pattern of such things?" (a million americans are dying and many more are infected.. thats a pattern)

Types of public speaking and how they relate to style: (5)

(These are genres of public speaking.. so the style has to fit in with the genre) 1. Commemorative/Event 2. Deliberative 3. Forensic 4. Rhetoric of identification 5. Rhetoric of invitation

unbiased objectivity is critical for:

(because logic, reason, and fact are crucial in making a speech) -citing credible sources -reporting events -providing reliable data and statistics -rules of logic -representing others POV

rhetorical reasoning "example": strength and weakness of an example:

*Strength* -it's vividness -a good example bring you a picture before your eyes that makes its inference compelling -so you're giving a good image to the audience so they can see the inference you're making *weakness* -insufficient sample (because a good example is just one or maybe a few things, which is also why a statistic is not an example) -rhetorical examples are not necessarily representative

Topic vs. Claim

*Topic* - is a phrase - is a theme - has no bias - Ex: The Israeli military operations in Gazy *Claim* - is a sentence - states a position - has bias (not in the earlier speech 2 though since you discussed both sides) - is spoken by someone to - Ex: Israel has no right to defend itself *a topic is simply a theme, while a claim is a proposition. the speaker's claim makes a demand upon someone to think differently or act on some public matter.*

The Public sphere:

*a relationship of strangers struggling for the right balance of privileges and obligations for maintaining a free common space* -you want society to turn into a community to reduce speech anxiety (this is just for our class)

the problem of the difficulty of cause, leads you to one of the major new concepts:

*the indeterminate* -things capable of being otherwise -P.O.C governs the realm of the indeterminate -"if you had just done this or this in your life, everything would have been different" - the decisions we make can lead to unforeseen consequences, so it makes our judgement much more difficult. we don't have ~certainty~ -causality is almost impossible in human situations

Post Hoc:

- "after this, therefore because of this" -It is evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B in no way indicates a causal relationship. -A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form: 1. A occurs before B. 2. Therefore A is the cause of B. - Ex: "I had been doing pretty poorly this season. Then my girlfriend gave me this neon laces for my spikes and I won my next three races. Those laces must be good luck...if I keep on wearing them I can't help but win!"

Ad Hominem:

- A personal attack: that is, an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. An ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument; but, it is based on feelings or prejudice, rather than facts, reason or logic. -It is often a personal attack on one's character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. Often, the attack is based on one's social, political, or religious views, or is based on lifestyle choices of the person being attacked using ad hominem. - Ex: Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., "This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?"

Red herring:

- A red herring is a fallacy argument that distracts from the original topic. Some may refer to this type of argument as a "smoke screen." -Ex: In business, arguing against giving raises - "Sure, we haven't given raises in over five years to our employees. You know, we work really hard to make a good product. We try to ensure the best customer service, too."

Ignoring the question:

- Simply avoiding answering questions which one has no good response for. -Basically, this is the same as changing the subject. Usually, if used as a conscious strategy, it is not done abruptly, but more subtly. The speaker or writer will respond, perhaps even using the term or referring to the question, but instead of answering it, will gradually drift into some preferred line of argument. An inexperienced listener or reader may never even notice that the question was left dangling. On the other hand, a more seasoned debater will at some point respond by saying You haven't answered the question, repeating it and thus pinning the person down. -Ex: During a press conference, a political candidate is asked a pointed, specific question about some potentially illegal fund-raising activity. Instead of answering the allegations, the candidate gives a rousing speech thanking all of his financial supporters. The speech was eloquent and moving, but shifted the focus from the issue at hand.

Circular Reasoning:

- We reason from what we already know to what we wish to establish. Your arguments only have significance if they establish something more than the evidence you cite to support them, *otherwise you are just repeating yourself* -ask yourself "does my claim advance understanding beyond the supporting material provided?" -creates a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. 1. X is true because of Y 2. Y is true because of X -Ex: "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible."

test for reasoning from narrative:

- is the narrative coherent? - is the narrative plausible? - are characterizations consistent? - does the narrative have resonance?

Schemas:

- the *ordering* of phrases and sentences in the composition of thought and emotion - figures of speech that deal with word order rather than the meaning of words -(Ex: arrangement in order of increasing importance: "Let a man acknowledge his obligations to himself, his family, his country, and his God.")

rhetorical topic: (2nd major speech?)

- topic=theme -just words or phrases, not sentences - top must be *public controversy* so NOT best movie, album of the year, sports, red carpet fashion--> these don't have a public function -has topical interest for public speak -topic must address a public controversy or issue - create a claim out of that topic - topic has no bias -when choosing your topic you need constraints (resources of invention) and these are positive not negative because they help you narrow down your topic. You must ask yourself if the topic of your speech is appropriate for the constraints it has -relevant to audience

hegemony:

-"The dominant ideology of a society, exerting social control over people *without the use of force*" -so not all ideologies carry equal power. Some become dominant. -hegemony is the process whereby the interests of a ruling group come to dominate by establishing the common sense, that is, those values, beliefs, and knowledges that go without saying -it subtly controls by determining what makes sense -(so during a speech the audience could hold a hegemonic stance different than what your speaking of and this could be the difficult part. So this is why you have to know your audience well and what their hegemonic stance is)

Exigence:

-"an imperfection marked by urgency" -it is the thing that activates, excites, and kindles action to change a particular concrete situation -the problem that arises that has to be addressed immediately, it is something real and concrete -"in any rhetorical situation there will be at least one controlling exigence" -an outstanding aspect of our environment that makes us feel a combination of concern or uncertainty that can be resolved by persuading the audience to act in a way that is capable of addressing the situation -(Ex: lets say an exigence is lateness to work for many people in the office. you may discover that this lateness to work is actually due to construction and you can make a case to management of the need for flex time)

Deliberative:

-(future) This is the speech of exhortation (exhorting people to do something) or dissuasion (dissuading people from doing something in the future). When people deliberate in public about whether or not to go to war, whether or not to adopt this or that policy (to change gay marriage policies or not). -how this relates to style: *see epideictic* but also this is definitely a call to action. The deliberative rhetoric asks what we should do in the future. In democracy, all known decisions that have unknown consequences require public deliberation. Because the future is *contingent*. and it is your responsibility to participate in this deliberative process

Forensic:

-(past) This is the speech of accusation or defense. speeches from defense attorneys, prosecutors, making evidence against somebody. So it's usually of the law. -how this relates to style: *see epideictic* but also forensic can use tropes to make a claim. (a trope is a turning of words to create vividness..literally means to turn. metaphors and similes are tropes) I.e "the mayor has blood on his hands" this is making an accusation using a metaphor. The action this usually pleas is punishment.

Commemorative/Event or epideictic:

-(present) This is the speech of praise or blame. You usually see this at a funeral, a state ceremony, presidential inaugural. these speeches usually praise an individual. This is a symbolic act -how this relates to style: by doing this you can call forth a response from a situation. This usually has high emotion and is not comical. The right use of speech's power is when you make it possible for people to see what they otherwise wouldn't see. style includes eloquence or sophistry. A good delivery means adapting people to ideas and ideas to people. delivery also includes appropriateness or rightness of fit-- do you use a podium? do you move around? there are no absolute answers to these questions. *You will need to adjust your style delivery to the demands of each situation* -- so like if you wanna praise someone like the epideictic speech does, you would obviously want to evoke a good emotion. depending on who your praising and where this could be casual or formal.. that is style. It is all dependent on the situation. You're also committing the audience to praise and remember the individual as well

Straw man:

-A fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted. -The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. -Ex: Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000." Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?" Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it." Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead." Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

Name calling:

-A fallacy that relies on emotionally loaded terms to influence an audience.

Band Wagon:

-An argument based on the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always valid: everyone believes it, so you should too. -also known as peer pressure -Ex: Bill thinks that welfare is needed in some cases. His friends in the Young Republicans taunt him every time he makes his views known. He accepts their views in order to avoid rejection.

strengths and weaknesses (positives and negatives) when constructing an argument:

-Negatives: could be potential role of bias -- what if you "leave out" some of your audience? Or pick a bad topic? -positives: you could influence your audience to see your POV in a positive and effective way. The argument you make to your audience could potentially show them the range of positions in a public controversy. It could also leave the audience with a *stasis* or clarifying moment: a point in your argument where the various perspectives have been sorted, strengths and weaknesses weighed, and irrelevant arguments discarded so that what remains is the real knot of the controversy... you're argument could have *eloquence*

but a *rhetorical situation* is: (used in speech 3, invitational rhetoric speech)

-Something that has to be addressed through speech -So a rhetorical situation demands speech -rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to a situation, in the same sense that an answer comes into existence in response to a question -if a rhetorical situation is a [question] then your reply to the rhetorical situation is the [answer] (situation, or question<----> rhetoric, or answer) -*Bitzer's determinism*: "situation is controlling", "speaker is obliged to speak", "situation calls forth a response".. so the situation determines how you act. In rhetoric *situation controls everything*

Slippery slope:

-The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. -Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to extreme and often ludicrous outcomes. -This "argument" has the following form: 1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). 2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. -if A happens than eventually a series of small steps through b.c....x,y,. If we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either - Ex: "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

So what is the role of the speaker, if the situation is controlling everything?

-The speaker is not the master of the rhetorical situation, but its servant -speaker has a secondary role in a rhetorical situation -The rhetoric is an aid in service of the audience's need to address the situation.. like the midwife (Ex: JFK was dying to get a legislation passed and then his processor gets it passed easily bc of JFK dying. He was the "midwife" taking advantage of the situation)

Fallacy of composition:

-The whole is not always equal to the sum of its parts. When you assume it does, you've committed this fallacy -The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference -Ex: "Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a masterpiece. So, the whole show is a masterpiece." This is fallacious since a show could have great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail to "come together" to make a masterpiece. -Ex: "Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless."

Vicious relativism:

-This is used in our final speech (rhetoric identification) -not really acknowledging the counter argument

Rhetoric of Invitation:

-This speech ask you to solicit degrees of adherence of the audiences you address to a point of view. -how this relates to style: the role of bias here plays a role. This speech is sensitive to *all parties* of the issue.. should be exempt speaking. pathos, ethos, logos

Rhetoric of Identification:

-This speech asks you to attempt to break through entrenched views and values with a transformative act of imagination. -how this relates to style: so for this speech the style and delivery is a little different. it needs to obviously appeal to all ethos, pathos, and logos but more pathos to create that emotional appeal to get the audience to see your POV. you need to gain attention etc.

ideograph:

-a concentrated potent expression that carries basic political values in it -typically a popular word, phrase or slogan -a "god" or "devil" term which is actually vague or abstract but is used as though it means something very specific and well understood, because it inspires ownership. -because of its emotional potency, it tends to activate all the associated nodes in its ideological network ex: welfare mom, freedom of speech

tests of reason from cause:

-a sign rather than a cause (correlation) make sure you don't make causal arguments when you have a correlation -are there multiple causes? -is there hidden cause? -is there an alternate?

Agency:

-because rhetoric is an action, people exert some control over their messages. People possess rhetorical agency -its "the capacity to act, that is, to have the competence to speak or write in a way that will be recognized by others in one's community" -"agency" does not mean a person totally controls the meaning of a message. Instead, the term indicates some degree of control is available, that an individual is capable of symbolic action, not just motion -so with the rhetorical situation the agency (control) of the situation is higher than that of the speaker

rhetorical reasoning "narrative":

-comes into play when a speaker tells a story. A story is personalized and presents a broad idea as a specific situation involving particular people -the dramatic structure of a narrative makes it powerful

rhetorical claim:

-constructing a good speech claim means you're half done with your speech--> 50% of speech is claim -a claim is a sentence, states a position spoken by someone to someone, propositional sentence - claim has bias -a topic is NOT a claim - different than claims in other aspects.. claim is NOT, an impersonal statement, a thesis, a hypothesis, or a philosophical proposition - a claim is a flesh and blood appeal from me to you. you want to persuade them or make them see something - a rhetorical claim is *situated*. Its embedded in a *context dependent matrix*

False equivalence:

-describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. -It's easy to construct red-meat arguments that establish an equivalence between incommensurable things -avoid the temptation to draw disproportionate comparison enhance the emotional power of your argument -False equivalence is occasionally claimed in politics, where one political party will accuse their opponents of having performed equally wrong actions. - Ex: "They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog." - Ex: "We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."

how to construct an argument:

-examples support your argument -reasoning skills help construct a logical argument -the first big concept of argumentation is "PROOF" -then making a claim, or argument will have its own entailments (exigence, audience, constraints) -rightness of fit= it is based on the situation. appropriateness *-so you need to mention: rightness of fit, audience, constraints and inherency* you use these components to create an argument *-you need to look at your audience and your role of bias. you need to be aware of your bias when making an argument and have the appropriate level of it* *-what does your argument do/say?*

Inherency: (so many)

-inherent issue are "main ideas" -determining the main ideas or issues you need to cover from a claim. this is like the DNA of your claim. -speech is inherent from a good claim -"inherent issues" are the issues that an audience needs or wants to have answered when you make a claim -next you need to tease our *inherent* issues -so you locate--> the essential and unavoidable -then dump--> the unessential or additional and extraneous and get rid of that stuff that they don't need answered -issues in a rhetorical speech are inherent and relative to your audience -inherency in rhetoric are intrinsic to a particular situation at a particular time -inherent issues are the questions asked -there is a feeling of necessity or compulsion that arises out of the claim that you make to an audience. You *have* to address certain issues. they *have* to be addressed. -If you've dropped an inherent issue, the audience should pick it up in the Q&A

constitutive rhetoric:

-rhetoric is constitutive, not just a tool of persuasion -rhetoric is itself constitutive of who we are as a community -we think we're just using rhetoric but all the while the rhetoric we use is creating us. Rhetoric is constitutive. -its not just an interment of communication but a constituting form of identity -"the art of constituting character, community, and culture in language" -rhetorical acts constitutes character, community and culture by inviting their audience to experience the world in certain ways. This understanding of symbolic action encourages thinking about how rhetoric constitutes people's understanding of themselves, their relations to each other and the world. *-the constitutiveness of speech helps us change the world.. communication produces us, then we shape our world with it* -(technology changing our behavior and us) -(white and colored bathroom signs. This discourse constitutes the community. creating conditions of your own reality)

rhetorical reasoning "analogy"

-something familiar to something unfamiliar.. so you can clarify an unfamiliar subject by comparing an unfamiliar relationship with a known relationship - use the pattern: A is to B as C is to D - you're not arguing about a direct relationship, your arguing about the relationship of two sets of things

Non Sequitor:

-that which does not follow -The term non sequitur refers to a conclusion that is not aligned with previous premises or evidence. A statement that is labeled as non sequitur is one that is not logical - Ex: "The school in which my child goes to school is big. The classroom must be big." - Ex: "She drives a BMW. She must be rich."

audience:

-the audience is mobilized to correct the imperfection -the audience might not even be the people who are listening. the audience is only those people capable of correcting the imperfection (exigence) of the situation

Public Sphere model: (or the circulation model of communication)

-the constant flow of messages among diverse speakers and audiences can be thought of as circulation. NOT LINEAR like transmission -meaning is emergent -the audience shapes the meaning -context, values, and interests change the message itself -a speaker's message is influenced by other messages that circulate in the public sphere

"The Public" (2)

-the public can be thought of as a group of people who are engaged in addressing issues of common interest -the circulation of messages helps to create publics

so you're *anthropomorphizing* the speech, meaning:

-the situation *calls forth* a response, and invites an utterance. -the situation *precedes* the speaking

rhetorical reasoning "testimony":

-this is like a testimony in a trial -we all know how unreliable witness testimony can be

rhetorical reasoning "cause":

-this is the most powerful -when we're searching for *causes*, we're looking for answers to why something happened.. the "why" question, you want the "because.." the difficulty of cause: -the "why" is really hard to prove, and as human beings we want to know why. Our ability to reason out questions several steps back allows us to figure out elaborate *solutions to problems*. but we run into limits because *we can't always determine the cause of things* (why does poverty exist in the richest country in the world?)

Transmission model:

-this models elements are based on the idea that effective communication involves a *sender* who transmits a *message* through a *channel* to a *receiver*. effective communication must minimize the amount of *inference* that might disrupt the transmission of the message. IT IS LINEAR In P.O.C: -the sender is the speaker -the message is the speech -the receiver is the audience member -the channel is the medium that carries the message (tv, media, auditory channel, visual channel, gestures body movements) -in public speaking inference means the physical and psychological barriers that prevent an audience from hearing the message

constraints:

-those obstacles that must be overcome in order to facilitate both the persuasive and practical effects desired by the speaker -the resources of invention -(Ex: Nixon being blamed for stealing money. he's begging for his country to forgive him but he has a constraint--> the bills show that the money was spent somehow, so he has that working against him. These constrain what path you take. Elements that cause you to respond one way or another)

rhetorical reasoning "sign":

-you're reasoning from a sign -Ex: men coming up to house in suits and you know your son in war has died -Ex: seeing footprints in snow.. animal has been there -Ex: statistics -so you get a sign and you just know. You make an inference from a sign -primary purpose of this: to predict something unseen or known from something seen or known (i.e its a sign of bad faith) -primary danger: to take something to be a sign that has an accidental relationship to it (i.e "the hurricane is a sign of God's displeasure")

12 logical fallacies:

1. Slippery Slope 2. Ad Hominem 3. Red Herring 4. Post Hoc 5. Non Sequitur 6. Circular Reasoning 7. Ignoring the Question 8. False Equivalence 9. Fallacy of composition 10. Band wagon 11. Straw man 12. Name calling

because a claim adheres to constraints, it has to have *rightness-of-fit*: (4)

1. appropriateness 2. fitness 3. balance 4. measure -hitting the target, the sweet spot

test of an analogy:

1. compare the relevant similarities of the relationship 2. compare the relevant dissimilarities of the relationship 3. weigh the strength of (1) against (2)

The rhetorical situation has three entailments or parts:

1. exigence 2. audience 3. constraints

4 qualities of a good claim:

1. in the form of a declarative sentence 2. tightly focused (not vague or generic) 3. doesn't contain loaded language 4. is calibrated appropriately to the audience and constraints of your speech

two claim responsibilities:

1. invent sound claim 2. invent sound claim for a *descriptive speech*

Speech one goal: Speech two goal: speech three goal:

1. openness to multiple perspectives 2. degrees of adherence: adapting the audience to your argument by bringing them just a few degrees to your view 3. rhetoric of identification speech: seeking transformation (converge your audience perspective) -speech 4 recognizes that a mindset is a product of an ideological commitment. speech four should attack this mindset

6 types of rhetorical reasoning: (types of inference)

1. sign 2. cause 3. testimony 4. analogy 5. example 6. narrative

Two ways to swap out an ideograph:

1. substitute their current ideograph for another 2. un-distort the ideograph

this constitutive dynamic is both:

1. synchronic (spatial, and all at once) 2. diachronic (temporal, across time)

role of bias:

Because the "public controversy speech" requires you to describe without bias the nature of the division on your topic, you're claim will have to be of these kinds: CLAIM: "Positions are deeply polarized on [Q]." CLAIM: "Only one key issue separates opponents on [Q]." CLAIM: "Once highly divided, opponents are finding common ground on [Q]." CLAIM: "[Q] excites a range of positions from moderate to extreme." -I think bias increases as we moved from speech to speech -bias can be used wrongfully because it can influence the audience and mislead them. The bias of the speaker could distort the truth

eloquence:

The classic term for the beautiful use of rhetoric as it approaches the truth - the opportunities of p.o.c (self-reflection, cultivation, building community) - the capacity of the beauty and power of the language to illuminate and move

Sophistry:

Type of deception and misrepresentation that can be used through oral speaking -a danger of p.o.c (manipulation, deception, equivocation

The theory we use to talk about the rhetorical situation is based on a paper by who and called what?

by Lloyd Bitzer, called "The Rhetorical Situation"

you can make a selection of the evidence or signs you choose and present (can be ethical or unethical):

by selecting certain elements and presenting them to the audience, their importance to the discussion.. endows these elements with a *presence* -ethical: by making a statement of how many are dying from aids or HIV.. speaker doesn't say how many of these people were straight or poor or whatever. so by leaving this out it is not unethical and it was perfectly appropriate -unethical: by withholding info from jury.. that is unethical

what is a fallacy?

fallacies are errors of reasoning

so what happens when one ideology becomes dominant?

hegemony

each node on a spider web is an:

ideograph

in the fourth speech you want to remove one of the cards from the _____ pile, so that the audience has to reorganize the whole pile

ideological

power manifests itself rhetorical through the creation of a dominant:

ideology

Rhetoric deff:

the *art* of effective or persuasive speaking (designed to have an impressive affect on its audience)

Ethos:

the character and credibility of the speaker -so you want to convince your audience on your credibility to talk about the subject and persuade them -by Aristotle (all of them) -"As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results."

Pathos:

the emotions that can be evoked in the audience -a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response. -"I'm not just invested in this community - I love every building, every business, every hard-working member of this town."

Logos:

the reasoning that is offered in the speech -persuading an audience by reason -"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: we have not only the fingerprints, the lack of an alibi, a clear motive, and an expressed desire to commit the robbery"

tests of testimony:

what do you think would be criterion for judging the strength of eye witness testimony? (like a witness to a 2 person fight) -people are human and come from different perspectives and they see things differently

so a *situation* by itself is:

when something is the matter about something that matters *- a situation is something contingent* (something that comes up, something out of the ordinary and needs to be addressed now, we want it to go away so we can return to "normal", an irritant or disruption, requires immediate action)

How do you make someone budge on a fixed idea that they have?

you must first understand why they have such a fixed commitment so you need to dissect the false image (*ideograph*) that person has in their mind that is causing the blockage -so the piece of their commitment that you're trying to change is called an ideograph. you want to pull it out and transform it. This will be the key to unlock their belief system