Have you heard any of the speeches that presidential hopefuls
used to announce their individual campaigns for the White House? I found Donald Trump’s entertaining; I found
Hillary Clinton’s and Jeb Bush’s thoughtful.
In every case, they were exercises in rhetoric. As I pointed out in a recent posting, they
were primarily efforts to convince listeners and enlist supporters. They were 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 were attempts at exhortation
and/or dissuasion as is the case in political debate. I base these observations on the notes on
rhetoric by Richard A. Lanham.[1] In this posting, I want to ask another
question of an argument: what is the underlying
process upon which the argument is based?
The process revolves around two sub-concerns: one, the argument’s main support and, two, its
reliance on the particular mental operation it uses to arrive at its conclusion(s). In this posting, I am first looking at the
use of supports. Below, I address mental
operations.
A teacher can ask civics students to determine what support a
politician uses to convince his/her audience of the conclusion he/she is
proposing. 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. These supports can be linked to
Stephen Toulmin’s[2]
dictum statements in his model for reasoned argument. For example, in the conclusion that Paolo is
Catholic, a support might be the fact that Paolo is Italian. In itself, it does not prove the conclusion,
but when added to other testimony, it can support the conclusion.
On the other hand, there is synthetic support. By using the term synthetic, I do not want to
say the support is necessarily untrue or unreal. It is a statement of reality not logically
supportive of the conclusion or it does not sufficiently prove the conclusion. In our Paolo example, if I say that he is
Catholic because I say so and I am of good reputation or good character, then
this argument is based on a synthetic support.
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. I am encouraged to believe
Paolo is Catholic because I am Catholic and I like Paolo and I 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 to 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: I know Paolo is Catholic because I 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. 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 or artificial
argumentation. Yet while illogical, the
use of ethos, pathos, and logos are all used to convince the listener of the
conclusion and not to necessarily share a truthful 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 second concern is over the mental operations the argument
demands in order to follow its “proof.”
Here we are on more familiar ground.
There are two mental operations:
inductive and deductive reasoning.
I will refer you again to Toulmin’s model which I believe in
effect combines both operations. By
relying on dictum statements, one’s main concern in inductive reasoning is
whether there are enough dictum statements to account for all the incidents
relevant to the conclusion or if the support for the conclusion is based on a
partial 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? 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 dictum statements
to the conclusion – is conclusive or only probable in its assertion. Careful; I am referring here to the warrant
statement, not dictum statements or conclusions. 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 inductive 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 presidential candidates’ speeches and other statements
and that of their campaigns. They can
also be used for any political argumentation.
For example, we hear 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. My
question is what dictum statements can such an argument use to support this
conclusion? The press is reporting many
in the South believe in this conclusion, but I haven’t heard any dictum statements
to back it up. I have heard of
documentary 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 our students study these rhetorical
arguments and form judgments as to their viability and veracity.
[1]
Lanham, R. A.
(1969). A handlist of rhetorical terms:
A guide for students of English literature. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
[2]
Toulmin, Stephen. (1969).
The uses of argument. London:
Cambridge University Press. See
posting for May 5, 2015, The Structure of
An Argument or Two.
No comments:
Post a Comment