USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Chapter 18
The Rhetoric of Aristotle
As your book states, Aristotle laid out three ways that people are persuasive: in who they are (ethos), in the emotions they use or evoke in the audience (pathos), and practical reasoning (logos). You might note that I give “logos” a slightly different meaning from the one provided to you by West & Turner. “Logic” has to do with proofs such as:
|
Proofs |
|
If A> B and B> C, then A>C If Set A = (1, 2, 3, 4), then the number 2 belongs to Set A. If AxB = 2A, then B=2 |
Now, “proofs” and “logic” are wonderful things, but Aristotle knew that most of life is not made up of such concrete ways of reasoning. Instead, we make sense of the world through our subjective experience of it. Aristotle believed that true persuasion through
logos will appeal to an audience’s sense of what is believable based on their life experiences. So, instead of logic, I (and many other people) call logos “Practical Reasoning.”
|
Examples of Practical Reasoning |
|
1. A crying baby likely wants either food, warmth, or to be held. (Cause/effect) 2. The War in Afghanistan is similar to the Vietnam War because they are both protracted engagements with little possibility of military success. (comparison) 3. People washing their hands will help contain the flu epidemic.(Cause/future consequence) 4. Cats like their ears scratched more than dogs. (contrast) 5. There are five ways to jump rope: Double Dutch, Chinese, Single Rope, Tandem, and Skipping. (categorizing or defining) |
Note how these reasonable arguments could be challenged by other reasonable people. Logic leads to conclusive proofs; logos does not because it is based upon human’s experiences in the world, not the “perfect” world of numbers and theorems.
Depending upon your audience, the topic, and the situation of your speech, you might use any one of those logos strategies that will seem reasonable. It is the artful selection, arrangement, and presentation of such claims that is at the heart of “logos” for Aristotle and all the other rhetoricians who followed him to the 21st century.
Rhetoric, therefore, defies being a “cut and dry” theory with tested hypotheses. Nevertheless, we can say that understanding the tools of rhetoric, particularly how to use ethos, logos, and pathos, helps us to better analyze many kinds of communications. Even if you aren’t speaking publicly, you can think of ways that a written article or report will appeal to your audience. How will you present yourself as “credible” (ethos). How will you make your topic important to the reader (pathos). How will you present the materials, pick arguments, present evidence, and refute other positions — all “logos” strategies.
So, look through Chapter 18, and then take a look at Aristotle’s own writing on persuasion at American Rhetoric:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/aristotleonrhetoric.htm
Read the entire selection of “clips” and note the different kinds of speaking and their different times and purposes. Note also toward the end how Aristotle addresses “ethos” and “pathos.” Even though he writes about human nature from a different cultural context from 2,400 years ago, we can see how well Aristotle describes what we still recognize as the emotions that might persuade people. Aristotle also makes it clear that a good speaker will understand the opposing side’s arguments.
Now, take a look at a remarkable speech by Charlton Heston. You can also hear it at the American Rhetoric website:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm
Charlton Heston was a famous American movie star, particularly of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. He almost always played heroic roles, such as Moses, Michelangelo, and Ben-Hur. He was physically strong and convincingly played a circus acrobat in one of his first movies. Toward the 1980s, he began to be involved in the National Rifle Association, and eventually became its president, which he was during this 1999 speech. Use both your book and the clips from Aristotle’s Rhetoric to answer these questions:
1. How does Heston establish his good character (ethos) with this audience?
2. How and why does Heston insult his audience? Who is this audience? What are their likely political views in comparison to Heston’s?
3. What pathos strategies does Heston use with this audience?
4. See if you can find these “logos” strategies:
– Comparison
– Enthymeme – a form of syllogism, with one or more steps left out
– Examples
– Quoting famous people
5. How well do you think Heston uses ethos, logos, and pathos?
6. Is there anything about his “delivery” (Canon 4) that strikes you as particularly effective or ineffective?
Chapter 14 – Groupthink
To help you understand Groupthink before you read your chapter and listen to the lecture, please look at this summary about Irving Janis’ “groupthink” theory. I think it presents his ideas concisely and clearly.
http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm
This chapter is particularly important because most of us have to work in groups and we need to know why they function well or not.
One example of group think that had devastating consequences was the decision to launch the Space Shuttle Challenger in January 1986. The people at a company called Morton Thiokol had developed the seals to the rockets that lifted the Shuttle into space. If the seals couldn’t close, the rockets wouldn’t function properly. The video I asked you to watch presents a re-enactment of a Morton Thiokol meeting where groupthink allowed the company to tell NASA to go ahead with the launch in weather many Morton Thiokol engineers felt was too cold for the seals to work properly.
Please relate an example of Groupthink you have experienced, analyzing the situation based upon the “symptoms” of groupthink described in the video and in your book on pp. 247-251. Be sure to identify the terms of various parts of group think.
I look forward to hearing your stories!
Organizational Culture Theory
Chapter 16
This chapter is about a “metaphor” – a creative device to make meaning by comparing two disparate ideas or things. In this case, Organizational Culture is based upon Geertz’s metaphor of the spider web, as described on p. 277 of your book. Look at how rich that single metaphor is for representing the way communication takes work, binds us to others, and gives our lives meaning!
We are clearly in a different realm of communication research! This realm does not have to do with testing people, putting concepts into measurable variables, or looking for validity or reliability. Instead, it relies upon a very different kind of knowledge. The researcher must both objectively understand and become a part of the organization he or she is studying to be able to observe it in its entirety.
Ethnographyis “a qualitative methodology that uncovers and interprets artifacts, stories, rituals, and practices to reveal meaning in a culture” (West & Turner, p. 282). The ethnographer takes time to observe, analyze, and interpret cultural practices. Typically, an ethnographer will hold off on having strong hypotheses that s/he is testing. Instead, based upon the observations and field notes, the researcher begins to see the connections among behaviors, rituals, and images. I want to underscore what West & Turner say: 1) a good ethnographer is conscious of his/her own values and beliefs and how they might impose upon an interpretation of another culture; 2) a good ethnographer recognizes that no level of observation will answer all the questions one might have about a culture; 3) the best ethnographies allow “the observeds” to comment upon the ethnographer’s “findings.”
For the place you work, please give a metaphor for the kind of culture. Describe your perspective, outlook, and values as a person within that organization. Then, review the definitions of these terms and give an example of the following for your work place:
1) Physical symbols
2) Behavioral symbols
3) Verbal Symbols
4) Ritual performances
5) Passion performances
6) Social performances
7) Political Performances
8) Enculturation Performance
As you can see, organizational culture theory places the creation of new knowledge as a very different process than the quantitative research theories we have looked at. In some ways, ethnography is a bit like rhetorical analysis because much of the value of the analysis relies upon the intelligence and perspicacity of the researcher and his/her ability to observe, analyze, and interpret
