Consider this . . . Week 7

This week's focus on Ellison's Invisible Man* provided an opportunity to think about fiction as a form of public argument. As an example of 20th century American literature, Ellison's novel stands as a literary masterpiece; as an example of public argument in time of drastic social and cultural change, it may be viewed as a rhetorical masterpiece. Given its spectacular complexity, please choose from one of the following options as you compose your blog posts for week 7:

Option 1: On Fiction

We spoke in class about the ways fiction works as a deliberate, purposeful craft and allows an author to have some level of control in designing character, plot, action, and situation. In well-crafted fiction, nothing is accidental; nothing is left to chance. In Ellison, this is evidenced in any number of ways, perhaps most notably in his naming of characters and places; the sightless, nameless FOUNDER, TRUEBLOOD, HOMER Barbee (who crafts/perpetuates the epic mythology of the founder and of Dr. Bledsoe), TOD Clifton (Tod meaning 'Death'), LIBERTY Paints, LUCIUS Brockway (Lucius, which means 'bringer of light')--all purposefully chosen; all 'work' to serve the narrative through direct, symbolic reference. We can see this level of attention throughout the novel. So in the context of rhetoric, how does fiction lend itself to public argument? And perhaps more importantly, what is your opinion of fiction as a form of public argument? What are its benefits? Its limitations?

Option 2:On Invisible Man

As we discussed, there are multiple interrelated arguments at play in Invisible Man, and if you choose, you should have the opportunity to comment on those we identified in class (related to identity, power, and/or democracy) or identify and explore another (i.e. those related to race, gender, economics, education, et al.). For this option, please offer your observations about an argument presented in this specific text.

* Instructor's note: I have found in organizing and typing the notes from our class discussion that doing so is no small project. I am working to create synopses of our discussion suitable for posting, and I will post them as a series as they are completed. Thank you for participating in such a rich and lively discussion of the text.

Consider this . . . Week 6

Given this week's discussion of the dissoi logoi and its implications for contemporary public arguments, as well as our discussion of Matt Miller's New York Times 4 June 2005 column, "Is Persuasion Dead?", this week's blog prompt asks that each of you take up the same question posed by Miller:

"Is persuasion dead? And if so, does it matter?" (emphasis added).

This is, of course, an important question, both in the context of our work in this class, which explores rhetoric and forms of public argument, and in the wider social context of a participatory democracy and media culture that is comprised of an abundance of information and and its organizational 'niches'(ideological, social, and political enclaves) and public 'figures' vying for prominence. So, given the benefits and drawbacks of the dissoi logoi and the complexity of our contemporary discursive culture, what's your take? Are our efforts to inform, explore, convince, and inspire worth the trouble?

Found rhetoric: syllepsis

Rhetorical figure permeates every aspect of language use, a phenomenon that not only points to our language's roots in an oral tradition (as we discussed in class) but also validates Hugo's argument that "once language exists only to convey information, it is dying."

Take, for example Ruth Fremson's NYT photo from 10 February 2009 (below).


A simple enough image, the President standing behind a canvas podium that reads "Making America Work," but what is striking is that in just three words, the event organizers advanced a much more complex argument, one that could be expanded a number of ways; still

"It is the responsibility of the country's elected and business leaders to protect opportunities for American workers (ostensibly through the proposed stimulus package), and it is the fortitude and productivity of America's workforce that is responsible for the nation's success"

doesn't fit nearly as well on a sign. Not the most economical use of language. . . nor does it hold the same appeal.

Enter syllepsis: recall that syllepsis is the rhetorical trope we discussed in class in which one word is used to modify, frame, or govern two or more other words. In this example, "work" is the word used in two different senses to frame "Making America" two different ways; it recasts the not only the meaning but also the grammatical construction and turns what could be a 40-word claim into a three-word, exponentially more effective, argument.

At once practical and beautiful, that, folks, is the power of language.

Consider this . . . week 4

Print advertising--the folks responsible for creating print ads are a rhetorician's dream. In medium where space is money, where you can believe that a team of markting professionals have exhausted every cost/benefit analytical tool at their disposal, where the importance of a strong, effective appeal can make or break a product (or even a business), there is little room for error: language and rhetorical appeals must be as effective--and as economical--as possble.

In class today, you partnered with one or two other(s) to collaborate on an analysis of a particular print ad. For Week 4's blog, please continue that analysis based on teh criteria we have covered in class thus far: identifying types of appeals, audience; observng and interpreting ethos and kairos; evaluating structures of reasoning (i.e. scan for logical fallacies), word choice (diction), arrangement (syntax), and figure (tropes and schemes).

In short, for week 4, complete as thorough a rhetorical analysis of the print ad you selected in class as you can.

2QE: Second Quarterly Essay

Throughout the first few weeks of class, we have been surveying rhetorical theory in order to better understand how language, and specifically argumentation, 'works.' To date, we have focused on identifying types of appeals and evaluating their efficacy, understanding the importance of an argument's 'situatedness,' grasping the complexity an importance of ethos, and evaluating the validity, ethicality, and sturucture of arguments. Tomorrow's class (2/5)will focus on learning more about the structure of language through rhetorical figure (tropes and schemes) as a way of observing and analyzing the relationship between craft, style, and efficacy and/or appeal.

Your second quarterly essay (2QE) asks that you apply these principles and attempt (essayer) a rhetorical analysis of your own; thus, the 2QE is not unlike the print ad analysis blog you will complete for week 4; in fact, your 2QE may be an expansion and revision of your blog exercise, should you decide to conmtinue your work from the week 4 exercise.

In short, you should select any public argument that interests you —that is, a specific, supported claim advanced in the public sphere—and evaluate it from a rhetorical perspective. In your analysis you should consider elements including, but not limited to kairos, rhetorical purpose, audience, type(s) of appeal(s), legitimacy of support (is it fallacious?), and overall effect (does it work?).

Next Tuesday (2/10) we will talk more specifically about rhetorical analysis as a methodology, so please refer to our class notes r/t rhetorical analysis to help support or guide your approach. This essay should result in a project that is approximately 4 to 6 pages in length (double-spaced) to start, but as always, please honor the content of your work over the length of the project: quality over quantity is our gold standard. If you have written a thorough, substantive analysis in three pages, or if you require eight, so be it. Please refrain from ‘fluffing’ or abridging your work at this stage in the drafting process.

Ethcial, Pathetic, and Logical Fallacies

The method by which we reason through complex ideas, through the use of language, is truly a remarkable craft. The arrangement of symbols to not only make meaning but to affect a particular rhetorical appeal is key in understanding how language works and in using it deliberately, responsibly, ethically, and effectively.

As we have discussed in class, what will be appropriate and effective in one situation may be inappropriate and counterproductive in another (i.e. in each case), which is one reason why understanding patterns and structures of logical proofs (pistis) is so important in the effective use of language. A well-crafted argument considers not just the kairos (the opportune or appropriate moment in which one situates and advances a claim), but also the method by which an argument is structured and supported. Once understood as a craft, Aristotle's classification of pisteis (proofs) as entechnic (artistic) and atechnic (non-artistic) becomes clearer: we use the materials and data available (atechnic pistis) to craft (entechnic pistis) an appeal.

When inadvertent, fallacies hinder the efficacy of language and compromise its ability to achieve its objectives; when used delberately, fallacies apply rhetorical mechanisms without consideration for ethics to achive an objective through unfair, unprincipled, or inaccurate means (as with propaganda, for example). While the compendium of specific logical, pathetic, and ethical fallacies is vast, they all turn on the same basic structures of reasoning: deductive (i.e. syllogistic and enthymematic) and inductive (i.e. probabilistic).

[Please refer to your class notes for specific examples and definitions of structures of reasoning and logical, ethical, and pathetic fallacies.]

Given the power--and often the consequences--of language, taking time to parse the logical structures of an argument, be it one you are crafting and andvancing or one you are receiving, may be one of the most valuable practices you can adopt.