Samenvatting
Samenvatting Political Rhetoric
- Instelling
- Universiteit Antwerpen (UA)
volledige maar gevatte samenvatting van political rhetoric (inclusief slides en wat er in de les is gezegd)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 38 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 38 pagina's
In winkelwagen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Political rhetoric1. Introduction
1.1 The importance of political rhetoric
o no politics without persuasion
o reason: uncertainty we live in uncertain circumstances + goals are debated
o rhetoric is THE fundamental political skill
persuasion by speech persuasion by force
most powerful least powerful
voluntarily submitting & accepting the influence Not accepting & resisting the influence
1.2 Political rhetoric
o < ‘retorike tekhne’ (Greek) rhetor = speaker + Tekhne = art the art of speaking
o studying rhetoric = learning the practical skills of persuasion
& studying the persuasiveness of persuasion
o not limited to spoken word (oratory), also written word, visuals, …
o many areas of rhetorical studies (law, organization studies, political, …)
o not limited to only politicians, also actors, activists, media, …
o “What makes political speech persuasive or not?” is the force of the course
1.3 Martin Luther King
o august 1963 at the march on Washington for jobs and freedom
o activist leader of civil rights movement
o why persuasive?
credibility as a person (who he is, eloquent, expertise …)
he emphasizes the important words
he takes his time (breaks) & looks at his audience
he speaks in we-terms & makes everyone feel included
arousal of emotion
rhetorical devices (metaphors, repetitions, contrasts, rhyme, allusions, rythm)
book : James Martin: Politics & rhetoric
,1.4 A diverse research field?
o different background => different questions
linguistics (rhetorical figures)
psychology (emotions. vs. the cognitive)
political science (questions of power)
communication science (mass media)
2. Rhetoric, a contested notion
o Rhetoric has a bad connotation often associated with adjectives such as mere, empty
o it is contrasted with reality, not always matched with policy action & execution
o associated with danger divisive political rhetoric is a danger to the world (e.g. Trump) because
people can be persuaded of almost anything (violence, misinformation)
o at the same time, there is no democracy without free speech (political rhetoric included)
2.1 Rhetoric was central to ancient democracy
o °Greece, 500 BC
o from aristocracy to democracy (demos = people, Ekklesia = volksvergadering = assembly of the
citizens in the democratic city-states of ancient Greece)
o highly participatory system status of being citizen comes with obligations you HAVE to
engage, otherwise you’re not a valid citizen
o rhetorical skills were important & were taught by sophists Sophos = wisdom (e.g. Protagoras)
o culture of oral transmission
2.1.1 Plato
o believed in one moral “truth”
o allegory of the cave= the idea that we as people live in a cave and have a fire behind us and all
that we see are the shadows of the things outside the cave. Only the very few and wise ones (aka
philosophers) can escape the cave and see what there is really outside/ the real truth of life, but
most of us stay trapped in the cave
o rhetoric is empty and dangerous because it can persuade most people of anything can do bad
instead of good (Cf. the death of his mentor Socrates because the people said so)
o he wrote the book “the republic” society should be based on reason and led by only the smart
elite strict division between the philosopher-kings and guardians, traders
o ideas were later criticized (e.g. Popper) because it was a very totalitarian vision
o more sympathetic reading: argument of alternative type of rhetoric (dialectic = a discourse
between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to
establish the truth through reasoned argumentation)
Cf. technocracy today = a proposed system of government in which the decision-maker or
makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly
with regard to scientific or technical knowledge
,2.1.2 Aristotle
o student of plato
o more positive reading of rhetoric the man is a political animal good life is life in accordance
with community (vs Plato natural state)
o rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning how should the best case be put, given the
argument, evidence, audience? best case in not always clear
o “the art of rhetoric”
o disclaimer: exclusive notion of what a citizen is (no women, no slaves, ..)
o Cf. importance of ‘enthymeme’ = instead of making a conclusion based on 2 premises, you skip
one premise because you assume everyone knows it already, it is a common known fact
o degree of permitted disagreement is limited some principals should better not be affected/
touched by rhetoric
2.1.3 Cicero
o great orator of the Roman world
o treatises on rhetoric (e.g. ‘De Oratore’)
o like Aristotle, refuted sophism understanding of topic comes first, then follows good speech,
but he himself was pragmatic
o persuasion in not about techniques but about talent to adapt to the audience, circumstances, …
2.1.4 Rhetoric diminished when modern state emerged
o centralized, powerful authorities
o laws to be obeyed without discussion (monopoly of violence) subordination of citizen
assemblies to rules
o 2 thinkers (Hobbes & Rousseau)
contrasting interpretations of sovereign state
similar perception of danger of rhetoric
2.1.4.1 Hobbes
o ‘leviathan’ (1651)
o pessimist about nature of human beings uncertainty & competitions driven by passion/
appetite
o humans are capable of reasoning (not like animals), but everyone interpretates events differently
no shared morality
o rhetoric leads to more confusion (e.g. metaphors can be interpretated differently), vs
‘perspicious words’ (clear, understandable words)
o rational thing to do: one-time “social contract” appoint supreme power to bring civil piece aka
leviathan because we are not able to live in peace together
, 2.1.4.2 Rousseau
o different take on what a centralized state is
o social contract (1762), not one where you give the power to one person, but one where the will
of the people is the most important
o humans are naturally good but modern society made them selfish
o return to harmony through agreement among citizens
state is not a distant leviathan
no external authority, collective citizen body remains in charge
obey the ‘general will’ (internal motivation)
o general will: not developed through rhetoric
o long debates bespeak the ascendance unparticular interests and the decline of the state
persuasion is essentially non-argumentative; appeal to individual’s conscience
need for unanimity: in favor of a small & highly exclusive state where people identify with
each other; shared sentiment form within
o Cf. ‘dogmatic’ forms of speech today (we use often ‘we the people’, even though there is no such
thing because everyone has a different opinion)
2.1.5 Brief summary:
o Plato is an anti-political thinker who believes society should be based on pure reason. Rhetoric is
unnecessary and dangerous
o Aristotle thinks that rhetorical techniques can help in the pursuit of truth
o Hobbes believes one voice should be granted primacy over all other voices to temper an
otherwise conflictual society
o Rousseau envisions a society where citizens deliberate to come to agreement, but without
actually communicating
2.2 Politics vs. the political
o James Martin tries to find an explanation to why rhetoric is so often seen as dangerous
politics = regular activities taking place within the rules of the game
the political = higher principles (what are the rules of the game) who is allowed to say
what, who is granted permission the speak, what is sovereignty
o the political is only partially settled
realization that things might be done differently
power relations can always change
o …. vs. philosopher who search for stable principles that leads to a stable and harmonious society
but society isn’t stable, it is chaos, disorder, crisis
o dismissal of rhetoric is a symptom of that concern
o because rhetoric involves both politics & the political
‘just rhetoric’= mundane day-to-day-business
‘speeches that changed the world’= efforts to establish new principles
o most often in between
o if thinker has sympathy for rhetoric (Aristotle) often limits (very exclusive public sphere) to
eliminate discussion about the political
o impossible to reconcile stability with inclusive rhetoric?
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lunapoos02. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 83662 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen