Resume
Samenvatting Politica Rhetoric
- Cours
- Political Rhetoric
- Établissement
- Universiteit Antwerpen (UA)
13/20 behaald in eerste zit
[Montrer plus]
Aperçu du contenu
Political Rhetoric1 Introduction
1.1 The importance of political rhetoric
No politics without persuasion
Reason: we live in a world full of uncertainty
o If everything would be clear, there wouldn’t be a need for politics
Persuasion by speech vs persuasion by force
o Force: you should obey or you go to prison
Not accepting & resisting the influence
o Speech: more powerful you vote for a politician because you want to (you
accept the power)
Voluntarily submitting & accepting the influence
The fundamental political skill?
1.2 What is rhetoric
Greek “retoriketekhne”
o Rhetor = speaker
o Tekhne = art
o = the skills / art to bring an argument
Studying rhetoric = learning the practical skills of persuasion
Studying rhetoric = studying the persuasiveness of speech
Not limited to spoken word
o Written word
o Visuals
Many areas of rhetorical studies
E.g. law, organization studies, …
Persuasion in the political realm
Not limited to politicians
o E;g Emma Watson, the media ..
“what makes a political speech persuasive (or not)?
1.3 Warm-up exercise
“most famous persuasive speech in history”
o Speech Martin Luther King – I have a dream
Activist leader of civil rights movement
August 1963
March on Washington for jobs and freedom
o Elements:
Repeating
Loud and clear
Intonation
, Metaphors
“we”, “my friends”
The rhythm (he almost sings it)
Rich vocabulary
The location
He addresses the people personally
Credibility as a person
Who he is
Displaying eloquence, expertise ..
Emotion
1.4 A diverse research field?
Different backgrounds, different questions
o Linguistics (eg rhetorical figures)
o Psychology (eg emotions vs the cognitive)
o Political science (eg questions of power)
o Communication science (eg mass media)
Each with their own terminology & research methods
Difficulty: they don’t always talk to each other
1.5 Rhetoric, a contested notion
Words often associated with rhetoric: “mere”, “empty”
o Rhetoric s contrasted with reality (ex: politicians promise a lot of things but do
not make it come true)
Association with danger
o It can make people act violent or make people make bad decisions (ex: no
vaccine)
o Can people be persuaded of anything? (violence, misinformation, ..)
At the same time: no democracy without free speech?
1.6 Rhetoric was central to ancient democracy
Greece, 500 BC
From aristocracy to democracy
o Demos = people (the rule of the people, people come together to discuss)
o Ekklesia
Highly participatory system
o Status of being citizen comes with obligations
Rhetorical skills were important
Teachers: sophists
o Teach people how to speak in public, how to do rhetoric
o Sophos = wisdom
o Eg: Gorgias, Protagoras
Culture of oral transmission
1.7 Plato
Belief in one moral “truth”
, Allegory of the cave
Only a small elite can see it
o We as people live in a cave and we have a fire behind us and all that we see
are the shadows from the real things outside the cave, only smart people can
go out the cave and know the truth, others are prisoners in the cave
Rhetoric is empty and dangerous
o it can persuade most people of anything; a rudderless boat; sophistries
o can do bad instead of good
“The republic”
o Society should be based on reason
o Strict division: philosopher-kings, guardians and traders
Ideas were later criticized (e.g. Popper)
More sympathetic reading: argument for alternative type of rhetoric (dialectic)
1.8 Aristotle
Student of plato
More positive reading of rhetoric
o Man is a “political animal”
We communicate with each other and we decide together how to live
o Good life is a life in accordance with community (vs plato: natyral state)
Rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning
o There is not always a real truth
o How should the best case be put, given the argument, evidence, audience ?
o Best case is not always clear
“The art of rhetoric”
Disclaimer: exclusive notion of citizen
o Cf. importance of “enthymeme”
To make a good argument you should base yourself on logical things
We want human rights human trafficking is bad for human rights
we need to fix human trafficking
“we want human rights” is common knowledge
o Degree of permitted disagreement is limited
1.9 Cicero
Great orator of the roman world
Treatises on rhetoric (eg “de oratore”)
Like Aristotle, refuted sophism
o Understanding of topic comes first; then follows good speech
o But he himself was pragmatic
A good persuasion is very context dependent; being talented to feel witch technique
to use
1.10 Rhetoric diminished when modern state emerged
Centralized, powerful authorities (who decided on the laws)
Laws to be obeyed without discussion (monopoly of violence)
o Subordination of citizen assemblies to rules
, Two tinkers ( Hobbes and Rousseau)
o Contrasting interpretations of sovereign state
o Similar perception of danger of rhetoric
1.11 Hobbes
Pessimist
“leviathan”
Human are driven by their desires, this leads to a not harmonious live together
(constant fights, discussions …)
Pessimist about nature of human beings: uncertainty & competition driven by
passion/appetite
o capable of reasoning (not like animals)
o But different interpretations of the same event: no shared morality
Rhetoric leads to even more confusion
o Different vocabulary, misunderstandings …
o Vb: metaphors only make it more difficult
o Vs “perspicuous words”
Rational thing to do: one-tile “social contract”
o Appoint supreme power to bring civil pieve
o We all decide for our own best to give our power to a figure that we need to
obey
1.12 Rousseau
“social contract” 1762
Humans are naturally good but modern society made them selfish
Retrun to harmony through agreement among citizens
o State si not a distant leviathan: no external authority
o Collective citizen body remains in charge
o We don’t give the power to a figure, but the collectivity of people is the
power
o Obey the “general will” (internal motivation)
General will: not developed through rhetoric
o Persuasion was essentially non argumentative: if we all think for ourselves
about what is the best we come tot this conclusion
o Appeals to individual's conscience
Need for unanimity: small & highly exclusive state
o People identify with eachother; shared sentiment from within
Cf. “dogmatic” forms of speech today
Exercise:
1C
2A
3B
4D
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur julievandermueren. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €9,09. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?
4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)
80467 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours
Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans