Below you'll find the most important information from our week 2 seminar.
What is Rhetoric?
We started the week with that most intriquite question in the study of rhetoric: What is Rhetoric? More specifically, we questioned whether we could even define Rhetoric. To understand it within the context of the course, we have to zoom out and broaden our understanding. The best way to do this is to take a historical perspective and see how others have understood the meaning of rhetoric.
The starting point, 16 questions compiled by Jay Heinrichs in his book Thank You for Arguing. Please answer these questions for yourself. We will return to these throughout the course. Furthermore, these questions will help us reflect on some of the reasons why we study rhetoric.
16 questions
What makes someone persuasive to you personally? What makes someone unpersuasive to you personally?
Persuasion is often thought of as deception and manipulation, but when is persuasion necessary for good and ethical outcomes?
Is rhetoric good or bad? Why?
Discuss the differences between arguing and fighting.
Discuss the differences between argument and persuasion.
What are some situations where the truth is available but persuasion is still needed. When do we need more than just logic and facts?
What is the difference between rhetoric and deception?
At what age should people be taught the basics of rhetoric and argument? Why?
What does “responsible rhetoric” mean to you?
Who is your favorite rhetor in the room (or elsewhere)? Why?
What are your favorite three words or phrases to use when arguing? Why?
What are you unpersuadable about?
What are some topics on which you want to be persuaded to change your mind?
Which parts of life are not affected by rhetoric? Does everything have a rhetorical aspect to it? Discuss several examples.
Discuss your classroom’s rhetorical atmosphere. What are its rules, patterns, expectations, and opportunities? In what ways is your classroom’s rhetorical atmosphere similar to / different from that of your other classes?
Discuss the rhetorical styles among your closest friends. How do you persuade each other? What are the rules, patterns, expectations, and blind spots? In what ways is your friend group’s rhetorical style similar to/different from that of other groups of friends?
Assignment 01 (submit before 02 March)
Assignment 01
Expand on your answer of 1 of the 16 questions. When expanding, consider clarifying some of the terminilogy you use, what you think it means, and how it relates to your knowledge. Find some good examples, whether anecdotal or based on research and evidence. The text can be in the form of a thinking text. In other words, solve the question by demonstrating your thoughts in your writing. How and through what processes you derive to your answer(s) should be clear.
You can submit your answers by emailing: djuddah.leijen@ut.ee and francesca.arnavas@ut.ee
You are free to choose the format of your text (word document, google docs, or any other form)
Submit your assignment before our next meeting, which is March 02nd.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Rhetoric
During our lecture, we discussed on the various classifications of rhetoric according to Artistotle. The Rhetorical Triangle is one commonly used to describe the most common sentiments of rhetoric (Rhetoric is the Art of Pursuasion), which provides an overview of the three rhetorical appeals. In other words, as you can see from the figure below, the rhetorical triangle consists of three components, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. According to Artistotle, a balance must be found among these three components to appeal to persuasion.
Ethos
Ethos refers to a speaker's "ethics". In laymans terms, any speaker (or writer) has what can be called a degree of credibility. This degree of credility can be anywhere between no or low credibility to high credibility. We measure this credibility in various ways, but generally we only need to ask, "who is this person?" and whether the information this person provides is credible or trustworthy. What makes a person trustworthy? What gives a person Ethos? What is my my ethos? How can I develop ethos?
Pathos
Pathos refers to a speaker's (or writer's) ability to appeal to your emotions. Today we would much rather talk about one's ability to make you feel or experience the information you're receiving. Perhaps this explains why multimedia and multimodal messages, such as those presented in Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, etc., are powerful. If done correctly, they appeal to our emotions, sometimes positively or very positively and sometimes negatively or even to the extent it causes anger and outrage.
Logos
Logos refers to the internal logic of a message (whether spoken or written). Again, we can extend logic to mean the quality of the facts, content, research, etc. For example, for specific content to appeal to a reader or listener, it has to pass through our ability to evaluate whether something is "true" or "false". We can, for example, make a claim "smoking is bad for your health", but for you to be pursuaded by the statement, you may want to have evidence which supports this claim. Consider how cigarette packages have changed over time. At first, boxes contained large letters stating Smoking Kills. Today, many of the boxes are multimodal, and in addition to the written words, horrific pictures are included to persuade smokers that smoking is bad. This is a fascinating example, as dispite these messages being very prominent, it still does not convince everyone to refrain from smoking.
Rhetoric of Past, Present and Future
Another helpful classification of Rhetoric Aristotle provided was that of Past, Present and Future. In other words, we can divide rhetoric into three "types" of "genres": 1) Judicial, 2) Epideictic (or demonstrative), and 3) Deliberative.
Simply put, these three branches categorise rhetoric related to the past (judicial), the present (epideictic) and the future (deliberative). The following might bring some clarification, but we invite you to deliberate over this three way classification and agree or disagree or find your valuable examples which either support or refute this classification.
1) Judicial
An example of judicial rhetoric helps us keep our democratic systems in check. Legal documents (or simply the law) is rhetoric of the past. These documents have been written in the past and are used to prosecute or evaluate our past actions. For example, to prosecute a person for something they have done (in the past), such as fraude or any other crime, we have to rely on the law, which states that such behaviour can or will lead to specific reprecusions. Lawyers, judges, but also scientists rely on past documents to be able to make specific claims.
2) Epideictic
Perhaps the most commonly used examples to expain epideictic rhetoric are speeches (birthday speeches, president speeches, eulogies, etc.). The main purpose of these speeches is to give praise (or blame) to an event which takes place today (wedding, a country, a movement, etc.). In other words, it can be both used to express good and bad. Another example could be education and teaching. When you're following a lecture or class, in most cases, a lecturer will try and convince you about the content of the lecture. Finally, consider other things you do daily and the influence this has on your perceptions today. For example, reading a book, watching a movie, visiting a museum or looking at art and architecture. Although these items may have been constructed in the past, they often influence your mood or perceptions of the world at that moment.
3) Deliberative
How do we change or influence the future (in a democratic society)? It's primarily through policy (documents written by governments and institutions) which instigate change. Another example, which was brought out, are company business plans and manifestos. For a company like Facebook to change itself to Meta, it must present a vision for the future. A clear plan needs to convince investors and board members. Politicians need to outline how they, if elected into government, will change the course of a country. The type of policy they will implement should resonate with the stance and beliefs of their electorate.
The above examples effect countries and companies, but deliberative situations also effect us daily in situations where we have to ask ourselves the following questions, where should we go for lunch? Should I accept a job in Tallinn (when I live in Tartu)? Should I buy that beautiful jumper or wait to buy it when it's sale (running the risk it might not be there anymore)?
Finally, deliberative situations can influence the very immediate future or a far away future.
Assignment 02 (submit before 02 March)
Deliberate over this three way classification and agree or disagree or find your valuable examples which either support or refute this classification.
Assignment 03 (read and submit before 02 March)
Please read The open hand: Meet Rhetoric and Composition to prepare for our next workshop. Whilst you read the text, formulate at least three questions about the text. When you raise the questions, make sure that you refer to the location(s) in the text where this question arose.
Send us these questions before March 02.
email: djuddah.leijen@ut.ee and francesca.arnavas@ut.ee.
