Lesson one

0 likes706 views

Rhetoric is a form of human communication that uses symbols to induce social action. It has a unique status as both a social and practical art. Rhetoric can take the form of narrative, dialectic, or rhetoric as a method of argumentation. As a method, rhetoric differs from dialectic in that it deals with concrete, specific questions regarding contingent issues aimed at popular persuasion and action, rather than generalized propositions for criticism. Rhetoric exists both as a practice of expression and performance, and as an intellectual method of investigation and planning how to express ideas.

Education

What is Rhetoric?

 One form of human communication

What is Rhetoric?

communication

persuasive

rhetoric

What is Rhetoric?

 One form of human communication
 Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424

Rhetoric: Functions and Scope (Bryant, 1953)

What is Rhetoric?

 One form of human communication
 Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424
 “the [art of] use of symbols to induce social action” -
Hauser 3

What is Rhetoric?

 One form of human communication
 Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424
 “the art of using of symbols to induce social action” -
Hauser 3
 a “practical art” - Hauser 11

continuum of communication

Instrumental Expressive
Insistence Artistry
Practical Art-for-art’s sake
Local, limited Universal, timeless

Rhetoric is both…

•Product •Process
•Doing/action • concepts on
“how” to do it

Rhetoric as Practice

Narrative

Dialectic

Rhetoric

Rhetoric as Practice
Narrative Dialectic Rhetoric
Mode of thinking Storytelling; normative, Posing of objections to all Two-sided argument to
traditional, noncritical in doubtful propositions until arrive at likelihoods based
nature objections are refuted or on audience standards;
the original proposition is intersection of reason with
replaced by one better able experience in ways that
to withstand critical engage feelings and values
examination

Used by Bards; poets; everyone Experts Everyone

Outcome Transmits norms Criticism; explores and Probable conclusions in
tests norms, assumptions, specific circumstances
premises

Structure Stories, myths, religion, Question/answer; Public discourse & symbol
fable, parables philosophy; science use; speeches, essays,
statements

Focus Infer norms for Rational certainty, not Opinion and belief that
appropriate/valorous acts action lead to action

Subject Matter Traditions; reality reflected Generalizations, abstract Specific cases
through storyline principles

Rhetoric as METHOD

 Dialectic  Rhetoric
• “expert” argument • “everyday” argument
• begins with opinion • begins with opinion
• all subjects • all subjects
• contingent issues • contingent issues
• Generalized, “ideal” • Concrete, specific
questions questions
• expert, technical • popular argument
argument leading to leading to persuasion
criticism & “truth” & action

Rhetoric as METHOD

Dialectic = speculative inquiry
concerning generalized propositions

Rhetoric = practical inquiry concerning
concrete situations

BOTH Practice & Method

 Practice  Method
 act, performance  planning
 shape feelings, ideas,  investigate situations,
acts (persuading) solutions
 expression  how to express
 social study  intellectual study
 practical  theoretical
 instrument  concept
 doing  knowing
 action  philosophy

Aristotle Bk I, ch 2

“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of
observing in any given case the available
means of persuasion. This is not a
function of any other art.”

The Rhetorical Situation

Lloyd Bitzer (1968)

The Rhetorical Situation

Lloyd Bitzer (1968)
Elements of the Rhetorical situation

The Rhetorical Situation

Lloyd Bitzer (1968)
Elements of the Rhetorical situation
 Exigence

Lesson one

1. What is Rhetoric?  One form of human communication

2. What is Rhetoric? communication persuasive rhetoric

3. What is Rhetoric?  One form of human communication  Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424

4. Rhetoric: Functions and Scope (Bryant, 1953)

5. What is Rhetoric?  One form of human communication  Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424  “the [art of] use of symbols to induce social action” - Hauser 3

6. What is Rhetoric?  One form of human communication  Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424  “the art of using of symbols to induce social action” - Hauser 3  a “practical art” - Hauser 11

7. continuum of communication Instrumental Expressive Insistence Artistry Practical Art-for-art’s sake Local, limited Universal, timeless

8. What is Rhetoric?  One form of human communication  Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424  “the art of using of symbols to induce social action” - Hauser 3  a “practical art” - Hauser 11  Cooperative / transaction  Temporary / situated  Limited / strategic  Ordinary / symbolic & social  Productive / constitutive

9. Rhetoric is both… •Product •Process •Doing/action • concepts on “how” to do it

10. Rhetoric as Practice Narrative Dialectic Rhetoric

11. Rhetoric as Practice Narrative Dialectic Rhetoric Mode of thinking Storytelling; normative, Posing of objections to all Two-sided argument to traditional, noncritical in doubtful propositions until arrive at likelihoods based nature objections are refuted or on audience standards; the original proposition is intersection of reason with replaced by one better able experience in ways that to withstand critical engage feelings and values examination Used by Bards; poets; everyone Experts Everyone Outcome Transmits norms Criticism; explores and Probable conclusions in tests norms, assumptions, specific circumstances premises Structure Stories, myths, religion, Question/answer; Public discourse & symbol fable, parables philosophy; science use; speeches, essays, statements Focus Infer norms for Rational certainty, not Opinion and belief that appropriate/valorous acts action lead to action Subject Matter Traditions; reality reflected Generalizations, abstract Specific cases through storyline principles

12. Rhetoric as METHOD  Dialectic  Rhetoric • “expert” argument • “everyday” argument • begins with opinion • begins with opinion • all subjects • all subjects • contingent issues • contingent issues • Generalized, “ideal” • Concrete, specific questions questions • expert, technical • popular argument argument leading to leading to persuasion criticism & “truth” & action

13. Rhetoric as METHOD Dialectic = speculative inquiry concerning generalized propositions Rhetoric = practical inquiry concerning concrete situations

14. BOTH Practice & Method  Practice  Method  act, performance  planning  shape feelings, ideas,  investigate situations, acts (persuading) solutions  expression  how to express  social study  intellectual study  practical  theoretical  instrument  concept  doing  knowing  action  philosophy

15. Aristotle Bk I, ch 2 “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art.”

16. The Rhetorical Situation Lloyd Bitzer (1968)

17. The Rhetorical Situation Lloyd Bitzer (1968) Elements of the Rhetorical situation

18. The Rhetorical Situation Lloyd Bitzer (1968) Elements of the Rhetorical situation  Exigence

Editor's Notes

#20: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#21: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#22: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#23: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#24: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#25: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#26: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#28: *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
#30: ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
#31: ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
#32: ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
#33: ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
#34: ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
#35: ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting

Lesson one

More Related Content

Similar to Lesson one (20)

More from trosteck (11)

Recently uploaded (20)

Lesson one

Editor's Notes