Samenvatting
Samenvatting Politica Rhetoric
- Instelling
- Universiteit Antwerpen (UA)
13/20 behaald in eerste zit
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 51 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 51 pagina's
In winkelwagenVoorbeeld van de inhoud
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
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 julievandermueren. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €9,09. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 66579 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen