What is the aim of
political speeches? To convince. In every case, politicians exercise
rhetoric. Their statements are not
primarily meant to share truth. Oh, they
might be based on truth claims – they might not be – but truth sharing is not
their primary purpose.
They
are attempts at exhortation and/or dissuasion as is the case in political
debate. Arguments might be based on out
and out lies. But, in the age of the
internet and the ability to check whether a claim is true or not, lies are more
difficult to promulgate; although it still happens.
Another
strategy is not to lie, per se, but
to engage in illogical argumentation. That observation is reflected in the
notes on rhetoric by Richard A. Lanham.[1] In this posting, this writer, with this strategy
in mind, wants to ask a couple of questions regarding an argument: what is the underlying process upon which that
argument is developed? And does the
process advance logical or illogical argumentation?
The
process revolves around two sub-concerns:
one, the argument’s main support and, two, its reliance on the mental
operation it uses to arrive at its conclusion(s). In this posting, it first looks at the use of
supports and, then below, it addresses mental operations.
A
teacher can ask civics students to determine what support a politician uses to
convince his/her audience. Supports come
in two classifications: real and
synthetic. Real support refers to
evidence such as eyewitness accounts, documents, scientific reports or
analysis, and laws. They are factually
based claims about reality; what Toulmin calls datum statements. Usually, any one datum statement does not
prove the conclusion, but when added to other testimony, it can support the
conclusion, perhaps even prove it.
On
the other hand, there is synthetic support.
By using the term synthetic, the writer is not saying this type of
support is necessarily untrue or unreal.
It is a statement of reality not logically supportive of the conclusion
or it does not sufficiently, despite its claim, support the conclusion. In our Paolo example, from the last posting, if
I say that he is Catholic because Mr. X says so and Mr. X is of good reputation
or good character, then this argument is based on a synthetic support. It is supportive, but not sufficiently so.
Argument
based on the good name of its advocate is what the Greeks called “ethos.” There is also “pathos” which is support
emanating from being seduced by a pleasant mood or positive feelings. One is encouraged to believe Paolo is
Catholic because one is Catholic and one likes Paolo and one would like to
believe his afterlife is more secure if he is Catholic. A use of good feeling can be within the
content of the argument increase the likelihood of its acceptance.
Then
there is the argument that sounds like it is based on a logical proof but does
not meet the requirements of a logical argument: One knows Paolo is Catholic because one saw
him attend a Catholic mass. This is a
synthetic support known as logos; that is, while the proof here is based on a
real support statement – Paolo attended a mass – it is not enough to make the
logical conclusion that he is Catholic and therefore, the overall support is
synthetic and deemed illogical if offered as the sole proof.
Any
time an argument strives to be accepted by sounding logical but falling short,
the rhetorical device of logos is being used.
Again, a rhetorical device does not make the conclusion false, but if
the device is synthetic, it is illogical, artificial, or incomplete
argumentation. Yet while illogical or
insufficient, the use of ethos, pathos, and logos are all used to convince the
listener of the conclusion and not to necessarily share a truthful and or
logical argument.
To
emphasize, the use of rhetoric does not necessarily mean the conclusion is
invalid; it simply means the use of it is aimed at logically or illogically
securing support. At times, the
conclusion can be valid; at times, it can be invalid, but whether it is or
isn’t is not its author’s main concern.
The main concern is persuasion.
The
second concern is over the mental operations the argument demands to follow its
“proof.” Here we are on more familiar
ground. There are two mental operations: inductive and deductive reasoning. By relying on datum statements, one’s main
concern in inductive reasoning is to ask whether there are enough datum
statements to account for all the incidents relevant to the conclusion or is it
based on a partial – insufficient – number of incidents.
This
is an inductive reasoning issue and is associated with pathos described
above. Maria is Italian and Catholic;
Carlo is Italian and Catholic; are those enough cases to logically prove the
case that Paolo is Catholic since he was born in Italy? Obviously not, but that is the concern when
thinking inductively.
In
terms of deduction, the concern is whether the warrant statement – the claim
that establishes the relevance of the datum statements to the conclusion – is
conclusive or only probable in its assertion.
Careful: the reference here is to
the warrant statement, not datum statements or to a conclusion statement.
The
claim, for example, that all Italians are Catholic is a generalization –
linking the fact that Paolo is Italian with the conclusion he is Catholic. As stated, the assertion – the warrant
statement – is conclusive (but not true).
Offering an alternative warrant claim, the overwhelming number of
Italians are Catholic, is a qualified generalization which makes the conclusion
probable – Paolo is probably Catholic – and true. These are the determinations one looks for
when analyzing deductive reasoning.
For
each of these elements, at least one analyzing question is suggested and
teachers can devise them so that students can analyze the rhetorical quality of
politicians’ speeches and of others’ statements. They can also be used for any political
argumentation.
For
example, one hears today that the Confederate flag is a symbol of the tradition
and heritage of the South and not a symbol of hatred or of the belief that
whites are superior to blacks. A
question is: what datum statements can
such an argument use to support this conclusion?
The
press is reporting many in the South believe in this conclusion, but one is
hard pressed to hear any datum statements to back it up. One can readily hear of documented evidence
that it does represent, to the extent it represents the Confederate States of
America, the belief that whites are superior to blacks.
One
is constantly faced with argumentation of all kinds. Political argumentation makes up much of what
is reported on the news. Hopefully,
these ideas on rhetoric will help students study these rhetorical arguments and
form judgments as to their viability and veracity. To further assist in this endeavor, this blog
will provide a listing of illogical arguments – fallacy types – that seem to
reoccur in common speech, the media, and in political rhetoric. That will be the topic of the next posting.
[1] Richard A. Lanham,
A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms: A Guide for Students of English Literature
(Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1969).
No comments:
Post a Comment