Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien
logo-home
Samenvatting Political Rhetoric AJ €5,49   Ajouter au panier

Resume

Samenvatting Political Rhetoric AJ

 6 vues  0 fois vendu

De samenvatting omvat alle hoorcolleges van het vak Political Rhetoric in het academiejaar . Ook de twee gastcolleges zitten in de samenvatting.

Aperçu 4 sur 35  pages

  • 21 janvier 2023
  • 35
  • 2022/2023
  • Resume
Tous les documents sur ce sujet (9)
avatar-seller
emmascheltjens
Politcal Rhetoric
Chapter 1: Introduction
What is politcal rhetoric and why is it imortant?

Politics is all about persuasion by speech (not the same as persuasion by force!)
 Persuasion by speech: you voluntary agree by being persuaded by the person
speaking
 Persuasion by force: you just must agree with the person speaking
Politcal rhetoric: the art of persuading others by speech
 It can be seen as a fundamental political skill

What is (political) rhetoric?
 The art of speaking `
 Rhetor = speaker
 Tekhne = art
 Studying rhetoric: learning the practical skills of persuasion and studying the
persuasiveness of speech
 Rhetoric is not limited to the spoken word only
 It can also be the written word, visuals that you include to the background
when you’re speaking
 Anything to convince an audience

Political rhetoric:
 Many areas of rhetorical studies
 There’s also persuasion in the political realm
 This doesn’t mean that it’s limited to politicians only
 Also, others who try to convince others of following rules or take certain
points of view
 What we will be studying: “what makes a political speech persuasive?”

Most famous persuasive speech in history = Martin Luther King – I have a dream

There are a lot of elements to make a speech persuasive:
 Different backgrounds, different questions
 Linguistics
o E.g., rhetorical figures
 Psychology
o E.g., emotions vs. the cognitive
 Political science
o E.g., question of power
 Communication science
o E.g., mass media
 Each with their own terminology and research methods
 Difficulty: they don’t always talk to each other

1

,  Many fields are studying this, so there are a lot of points of views
 This course will be about eclectic approach

Rhetoric is a little bit contested:
 Is seen as someone that is in contrast with the truth
 Also frequently associated with danger
 E.g., when Trump persuaded people to raid the Capitol
 There’s this negative connotation, but it’s a good and important thing in democracy
 Free speech: everyone is allowed to express their opinion
 Rhetoric seems to be a condition

Views on rhetoric through history

Ancient democracy:
 Rhetoric was seen as very important
 Highly participatory system
 Came with obligations, you are expected to always participate
 Rhetorical skills became important
 Anyone should be able to speak up and defend themselves
 Sophists: people who taught rhetoric to others

Plato:
 Saw rhetoric as something dangerous because it was “empty”
 His mentor was Socrates, who had to drink poison because he taught young
people on political affairs
 Plato thought that bad people could do bad things just by being good at
rhetoric (which is true)
 Plato believed in one big truth
 Allegory of the cave: people are stuck in a cave and what they see is only a
projection of the real world, only someone who is smart enough can leave the
cave and see things in their true form
 Not everyone can see the “big truth”
 “The Republic”: a book in which he describes the society that he wants
 There’s no rhetoric needed, only philosophy kings who know the big truth
 Popper sees Plato’s ideas as a totalitarian system
 There are also writers who do like his idea of a perfect society
 They say rhetoric shouldn’t be the highest principle
 Technocracy: letting experts make decisions instead of politics

Aristotle:
 Pupil of Plato who had a more positive view on rhetoric
 Thinks that a man is a political animal, because we live in a community (that’s
why we’re not the same as animals)
 Rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning
 How should the best case be put, given the argument, evidence, audience?
 Best case is not always clear
 “The Art of Rhetoric”
 Disclaimer: exclusive notion of “citizen”

2

,  Enthymeme: a technique where you make an argument by not making the
full argument, but you somehow assume that your audience already shares a
certain opinion with you
o Enthymeme is very important in Aristotle’s “The Art of Rhetoric”
 Degree of permitted disagreement is limited

Cicero:
 Great orator of the Roman world
 He was very pragmatic
 “De Oratore”: book on how to be a good speaker
 Refuted sophism
 Understanding of the topic comes first, then follows good speech
 A good speaker is someone who feels what’s needed in certain situations
 It’s not about techniques, but about the talent to adapt

Rhetoric in the modern state:
 Centralized powerful authorities
 Laws to be obeyed without discussion
 State has a “monopoly of violence”
 Subordination of citizens assemblies to rules
 Two important thinkers:
 Hobbes and Rousseau
 Tried to see why people agreed with obeying to a central authority
 They both have a different perception on why people do this, but they have
a similar idea on rhetoric
Hobbes:
 “Leviathan”
 Pessimist about nature of human beings: uncertainty and competition driven by
passion
 He thought that people were capable of reasoning, but because life is so
difficult people won’t generally reason
 People also have different interpretations of the same event
 Rhetoric would lead to even more confusion
 Things like metaphors make some things difficult to understand
 Perspicuous words: speaking clearly, something not many people are capable
of
 Rational thing to do is a one time “social contract”
 Appoint supreme power to bring civil piece

Rousseau:
 Is less pessimist and believe people can live together, but he thinks modern society
had made people selfish
 Way to return to the “original state” is an agreement among citizens
 Less externalized than it is with Hobbes
 Just likes Hobbes he thinks rhetoric doesn’t have a place in this
 Persuasion shouldn’t be rhetoric, but just looking internally and knowing
what is actually good

3

,  Need for unanimity
 There’s a need for a small and highly exclusive state
 People will identify with each other and have a shared sentiment from within

Politi cs vs. the politi cal

Why do so many people see rhetoric as something dangerous?
 Politics: regular activities taking place within the rules of the game
 The political: higher principles, what are the rules of the game?
 Foundation of politics
 The political is always partially settled
 If not, there wouldn’t be politics
 It’s only partially settled; power can always change, and the “rules of the
game” can also change
 Philosophers are looking for harmony
 Rhetoric gives an opportunity for chaos because you can challenge politics

Rhetoric involves both politics and the political
 There’s this rhetoric that has the potential to change the order
 Can be uncomfortable
 If some of the thinkers (Aristotle) have sympathy for rhetorics, it’s often very limited
 So that it can’t really change society
 Is it impossible to reconcile stability with inclusive rhetoric?
 Probably yes, but this argument will come back

Situati on rhetoric

Language:
 Rhetoric uses language
 Not all rhetoric is language
 Not all language is rhetoric
Ideology:
 Ideology: organized belief system
 E.g., liberalism, communism…
 But rhetoric is about assembly/construction of ideas (and delivery)
 Ideology is a resource for rhetoric
 Rhetoric can change (or create) ideologies
Discourse:
 Is also about how people ‘make meaning’ of things
 Also deals with persuasion and power
 Cf. critical discourse analysis
 Discourse is broad and ungoing; rhetoric concentrates on situated encounters




4

Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

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

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

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 emmascheltjens. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.

Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?

Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €5,49. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.

Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?

4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)

60281 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours

Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans

Commencez à vendre!
€5,49
  • (0)
  Ajouter