Consider this . . . Week 3

As this course is designed to offer substantial instruction and practice across various modes of literacy by directly engaging public argument, the blog project offers each of you the opportunity to do just that: now that each cohort has named and configured a blog, you are now prepared to advance public arguments of your own.

Each week, I will post a prompt, related to our class discussions and/or current events, for bloggers and respondents to consider (i.e. the “Consider this . . .” series of posts). These prompts are designed to frame your work within the context of our course and guide your approach, but you are welcome to explore any subject or text you choose. My hope is that you can tailor these blog posts and responses to your own personal and professional interests, making them relevant to and representative of your unique perspectives and experiences.

Please keep in mind that those who post this wek should do so by midnight Tuesday, February 3; respondents should post their work by midnight Saturday, February 7.

Without further ado . . .

Consider: ethos

In his treatise On Rhetoric, Aristotle argues that ethos “should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person” (1.2.42), which is in many ways a practical and fair suggestion. In contemporary practice, public arguments—especially those advanced by ‘public figures,’ be they well-known writers, celebrities, public servants, or ‘talking heads’—are often inextricable from the character or reputation of the person or group advancing the argument. This presents an interesting problem: to what degree can we discount reputation? Should we? When you judge ethos (i.e. the credibility of a given speaker/author), do your conclusions depend more on the speaker’s reputation or on the particular rhetorical moment/act (or both, and in what measure)?