During our last class, Professor Pandey mentioned that we should make a connection to something that excites us emotionally and connect that subject matter to the text. As apparent from my excitement over two predominant and differing means of receiving newsworthy information today and because of my background in independent media I choose to relate Aristotle's Theory of Civic Discourse to my claim (within a hypothetical essay): if old media and new media delivery systems can be shown to be equivalent to two different forms of rhetorical appeal, then at least in part, the current polarization of civic discourse (what the right believes versus what the left believes) is determined by the means of information delivery. And further, that growth of the old media or new media, therefore, determines which side’s views appear to be growing and to be true.
I write this post based mostly on the second half of the book according to the current assignment even though the application of the whole book applies to my hypothetical essay. So, this post is sort of an outline of points within Aristotle's rhetorical methods that applies to my imagined essay on old and new media. I will start my argument with the prooimion (introduction) with the work experience of the rhetor (assumed to be myself). This is contrary to Aristotle who recommends the epilogue which suggests that the speaker be made to appear as "a good man in terms of the issues" (249). The qualifications provide credibility of what the rhetor says since, in this case, my professional experience qualifies me to make my claim. The second part of the essay which follows will include the components of rhetoric from “Book Two” and will not be concerned with the style of the paper or speech as discussed in “Book Three.”
In “Book Two” Aristotle defines and elaborates on the “adaptation of the speech to the character of the audience [and] . . . logical techniques, including paradigms, enthymemes, and topics” (111). Aristotle concludes the chapter with “the discussion of rhetorical invention or thought” (111). As the author (George A. Kennedy) states, chapters in “Book Two” are “the earliest systematic discussion of human psychology” (113). Although Aristotle’s book is written for a human rhetor to deliver the argument as a speech to an audience for the purpose of persuading them one way or another, his discussion of human psychology may be used to guide me in writing an essay that is meant to be read rather than spoken. A few differences must be addressed such as the fact that my essay is for a world audience on the Internet; the specific types of audiences and their psychologies addressed by Aristotle are not directly applicable to my written argument. Nonetheless, I will mention a few instances where the psychological elements of the audience seem to apply.
Aristotle says that it is necessary for the speaker to “seem to be a certain kind of person and that his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way and in addition if they, too, happen to be disposed in a certain way [favorably or unfavorably to him}” (112). In the case of my essay’s claim and how that might relate to my audience, I assume the following. My audience is the world since this Internet blog will hopefully contain the hypothetical essay at some point in the future. Based on my Facebook friends and their posts during the 2016 election, my audience is made up of mostly progressives that would be insulted by my claim since it refutes the left’s assignment of “Fake News” to new media. So, I as the speaker need to overcome the current bias of my audience somehow. According to Aristotle, I need to go beyond the technical/logical explications behind my claim and appeal to the public's sensitivities to three things: “practical wisdom [phronesis] and virtue [arete] and goodwill [eunoia]” (112). If my essay can appear to have all these qualities, then it will persuade even progressives to accept my argument. Additionally, if I can show myself, as the author of the essay, to be like my “hearers [readers of my paper] in interests and desires," then my paper’s argument will be accepted (115).
Aristotle explains how important a friendly speaker is to the audience. Friendliness is entirely applicable to my Facebook friends who will undoubtedly read my essay. I choose to refrain from using Aristotle’s use of anger to persuade my audience since they are angry enough and most likely in any case be driven by anger should it be aroused to believe their current bias against my claim of “Fake News” being old media. My appeal to my audience must not appear to belittle because if they are belittled it may be the last straw, and their anger (118-119) may drive them back to their fixed position on “Fake News.” Especially so in the case of my Facebook friends for Aristotle goes on to say “[they become angry] at friends more than those who are not friends; for they think it is more appropriate for them to be well treated by them than not” (119). My essay then should not have a tone of insensitivity towards progressive’s beliefs because it would be a sign of belittling and that would arouse them to anger. I, therefore, would perhaps tie the technical data that is the basis for my claim back to some progressive institutions such as colleges and nonprofits. And my paper (hypothetical paper) should show the author as a person that works to get by; a person who “lives by their own efforts” (125). In these ways, I (as rhetor) may appear friendlier and less belittling than appearing as a tech guru whose word challenges the current beliefs of my audience.
Notes: I’m ending this week’s post here because it is getting long and I’m not sure if I handled it correctly. I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat, and I do not believe in the present form of government.
