A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum: Comedy Central and Rhetoric
Pragma-Dialectics offers rules of engagement for argumentation.I want to look at the question, How might a student of Burke’s critique an ethical argument differently? My answer casts the two camps in different timeslots on Comedy Central’s schedule.I hope to discuss disagreement between our readings meaningfully and with a view to engaging our students.
Identification is a rhetorical emphasis preferred by brain-hungry extraterrestrials.The mandibles always appear just after a speech establishing how closely the concerns of Planet Gormand parallel those of Earth. A likely story.Persuasion thus follows the logic of narrative, as Keith and Lundberg illustrate through Hitler’s tale of the German people as victims (53-4).Likewise, speaking of General Petraeus as a “relief pitcher coming to the mound with bases loaded” places an argument about Afghanistan within an interpretive plot.Burke used literary analysis as a springboard, so he understood how we tell stories to bridge division and see past the limits of our respective experiences.A direct appeal to identification is analogous to a novel which expects the reader to “identify” with a main character.
Thus, a student of Burke’s might view rhetorical moves which establish common ground with more suspicion than a pragmatico-dialectician.But mark that for Burke, all persuasion depends upon some form of identification (he arrives at this idea after considering the categories of nothingness and existence in the Gospel of John, which just goes to show how far argument by analogy can take you).And because the human need for identification arises from the human tendency for division (“If men were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity” [Burke 23]), it makes sense that we become more aware of persuasion as identification through a consideration of political difference.The same mode by which same-sex couples argue for marriage rights is navigated bycorporations portraying themselves as “taxpayers like you.”“They” become “us” through identification.
Such a perspective can equip cynicism.The creators of “SouthPark,” a defecation-centered animated television program, continually satirize attempts to establish identification.Empathic types find it tough going when they visit SouthPark.While they argue for recognizing a shared humanity, they are constantly confronting giant spiders and aliens behind the curtains of rival belief systems."South Park's" humor may be said to defend division and forestall identification. The proliferation of non-humans mouthing arguments from our current national political debates is funny, but it can also be seen as indicating that identification itself is ludicrous. Burke would not have shared the same political outlook, nor arrived at the same conclusions as Trey Parker and Matt Stone, yet the duo’s satirical comedy appears to be informed by a similar understanding of rhetoric.This understanding can be expressed with a negative/defensive inflection, viewing humor as defense against coercion.
Advance a persuasive argument, satire will squeeze it.At first, satire seems suited to social conservatism in the way that its ridicule tends to spare the status quo by default.Yet, Jon Stewart-produced news programs model another approach.As our preeminent venues for rhetorical analysis, “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” name-check informal fallacies from tu quoque to “reductio ad hitlerum” during their round-up of current events.Just as with “SouthPark,” Stewart and Colbert have found that sitting beneath the foolscap puts one in a powerful position to act as rhetorical watchdog.Witness Stewart’s exchange with Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala (linked in Jones 159).There Stewart continually emphasizes his role as an entertainer, claiming that this rhetorical mode remains distinct—as delineated by Cicero (Keith and Lundberg 27).The implication is that entertainers are exempt from the rules of responsible argument.But, on his own show, Stewart leaves the cynic’s clay jar to advance positive claims about the way we ought to argue.His humor assumes good intentions, assumes the value of maintaining the conversation when we argue.His attitude corresponds to the view which framed the Amsterdam rules included in the chapter by Jones.
The Amsterdam rules offer guides for “proper engagement” rather than work at naming failed arguments (Jones 172).While Jones denotes this approach as “utopian,” the crucial difference to appreciate in the approach is its positive, practical, interpersonal orientation.Whereas one could identify logical fallacies alone with a text, going Dutch requires negotiation with another person.I have planned to use video clips of “The Daily Show” during the Op-Ed unit.In Stewart we have an accessible week-nightly performance to evaluate against standards for engagement.There are also, frequently, jokes.
"Going Dutch" as Tom put it, means being willing to engage in a bit of give and take with your interlocutor. However, as Tom and Jones ("Its not unusual to be loved by anyone!") point out there is something Utopian about the idea of both parties negotiating in good faith. In this vein I wanted to share a few things I found in the intertubes that point-up or point out the difficulty of this Utopian prospect:
The link above to Glenn Greewald's blog will take you to a piece he wrote about the beloved (by Jones and Tom) Jon Stewart, and his upcoming Rally to Restore Sanity. In the piece Greenwald points out that "he's eager to target rhetorical excesses on both the left and right in order to demonstrate his non-ideological centrism. But the example he chose to prove that the left is guilty, too -- the proposition that Bush is a "war criminal" -- is an extremely poor one given that the General in charge of formally investigating detainee abuse (not exactly someone with a history of Leftist advocacy) has declared this to be the case, and core Nuremberg principles compel the same conclusion." Here we have a Greenwald criticizing Stewarts criticism of 'rhetorical excess' as a form of rhetoric itself, "The claim that Bush is "a war criminal" has ample basis, and it's deeply irresponsible to try to declare this discussion off-limits, or lump it in with a whole slew of baseless right-wing accusatory rhetoric, in order to establish one's centrist bona fides." And, so the rhetorical circle spins. This article is interesting in that it shows how even the man under the 'foolscap' can become implicated and thereby lose the protection of the almighty 'I'm just foolin'.'
The link above is to an In These Times article by Michael Atkinson titled "Once Upon a Time, in America…" The gist of the article is that conservative or right-wing politicians and their ilk have a rhetorical advantage over their counterparts in the left wing, specifically, they have the ability (or willingness) to tell stories or 'narrativize' their political position. He writes, "Tell a tale. Campfire stories about Commie boogeyman and welfare cheats, bedtime stories about how things used to be, once upon a time. To dip even your littlest toe into the river of conservative media is to hear stories, stories of evil homosexuals, beatific soldiers, heroic Republican presidents, and halcyon days of law, order, authority and traditional values." However, for the left, "The problem is, leftists do not tell stories—whether true or fabricated—that involve the past. Progressives opine for the practical future, a future that they aim to create free of turmoil or injustice. That is, a future without stories. Stories require conflict, emotional desire, heroes and villains." This strategy, of narrativizing a political position, is interesting in that it fundamentally undermines the ability of an interlocutor or debater to engage some (or all) of the rhetorical rules laid out by the Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, in that it presumes a starting point, presumes a host of near inexplicable premises, and forces the interlocutor to begin by deconstructing the narrative, thereby giving the yarn-spinner time to begin telling another tale.
I guess the last two links are things I'll just throw up: one:
I'm glad you brought up Jon Stewart. I'm also glad that Jones brings up Jon Stewart at the beginning of her article. I'm very glad, indeed, because the platform Stewart advocates is one of rhetorical honesty. I love when he went on "Crossfire" and accused them of spectacle and of not providing an honest, inquiring, and thought-provoking forum. As someone who has watched for years men charlatans like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity arbitrate or participate in "debates", I was easily able to identify with Jones when she discusses how she could tell when an argument was suspect but didn't have the right vocabulary to articulate why. I'm glad to have the vocab. to be able to identify why an argument fails. I'm sure that if we were to map out most arguments made on CNN or Fox based upon Toulmin's diagram it would be more convoluted and difficult to follow than a map of montana drawn by inebriated monkeys.
I think pragma-dialetics offers a good set of rules for arbitrating debate. I'm particularly enamored of the burden-of-proof rule because too often in modern discourse are standpoints offered with no intention of defending it or no solid ground to do so.
"Going Dutch" as Tom put it, means being willing to engage in a bit of give and take with your interlocutor. However, as Tom and Jones ("Its not unusual to be loved by anyone!") point out there is something Utopian about the idea of both parties negotiating in good faith. In this vein I wanted to share a few things I found in the intertubes that point-up or point out the difficulty of this Utopian prospect:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart/index.html
The link above to Glenn Greewald's blog will take you to a piece he wrote about the beloved (by Jones and Tom) Jon Stewart, and his upcoming Rally to Restore Sanity. In the piece Greenwald points out that "he's eager to target rhetorical excesses on both the left and right in order to demonstrate his non-ideological centrism. But the example he chose to prove that the left is guilty, too -- the proposition that Bush is a "war criminal" -- is an extremely poor one given that the General in charge of formally investigating detainee abuse (not exactly someone with a history of Leftist advocacy) has declared this to be the case, and core Nuremberg principles compel the same conclusion." Here we have a Greenwald criticizing Stewarts criticism of 'rhetorical excess' as a form of rhetoric itself, "The claim that Bush is "a war criminal" has ample basis, and it's deeply irresponsible to try to declare this discussion off-limits, or lump it in with a whole slew of baseless right-wing accusatory rhetoric, in order to establish one's centrist bona fides." And, so the rhetorical circle spins. This article is interesting in that it shows how even the man under the 'foolscap' can become implicated and thereby lose the protection of the almighty 'I'm just foolin'.'
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6332/once_upon_a_time_in_america/
The link above is to an In These Times article by Michael Atkinson titled "Once Upon a Time, in America…" The gist of the article is that conservative or right-wing politicians and their ilk have a rhetorical advantage over their counterparts in the left wing, specifically, they have the ability (or willingness) to tell stories or 'narrativize' their political position. He writes, "Tell a tale. Campfire stories about Commie boogeyman and welfare cheats, bedtime stories about how things used to be, once upon a time. To dip even your littlest toe into the river of conservative media is to hear stories, stories of evil homosexuals, beatific soldiers, heroic Republican presidents, and halcyon days of law, order, authority and traditional values." However, for the left, "The problem is, leftists do not tell stories—whether true or fabricated—that involve the past. Progressives opine for the practical future, a future that they aim to create free of turmoil or injustice. That is, a future without stories. Stories require conflict, emotional desire, heroes and villains." This strategy, of narrativizing a political position, is interesting in that it fundamentally undermines the ability of an interlocutor or debater to engage some (or all) of the rhetorical rules laid out by the Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, in that it presumes a starting point, presumes a host of near inexplicable premises, and forces the interlocutor to begin by deconstructing the narrative, thereby giving the yarn-spinner time to begin telling another tale.
I guess the last two links are things I'll just throw up: one:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/01/proofiness-using-numbers-to-fool-people-and-shape-political-deb/
is a book review talking about how numbers are used as a rhetorical tool; two:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.5/hogeland.php
is an article detailing the history of 'populism' in American political discourse.
I'm glad you brought up Jon Stewart. I'm also glad that Jones brings up Jon Stewart at the beginning of her article. I'm very glad, indeed, because the platform Stewart advocates is one of rhetorical honesty. I love when he went on "Crossfire" and accused them of spectacle and of not providing an honest, inquiring, and thought-provoking forum. As someone who has watched for years men charlatans like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity arbitrate or participate in "debates", I was easily able to identify with Jones when she discusses how she could tell when an argument was suspect but didn't have the right vocabulary to articulate why. I'm glad to have the vocab. to be able to identify why an argument fails. I'm sure that if we were to map out most arguments made on CNN or Fox based upon Toulmin's diagram it would be more convoluted and difficult to follow than a map of montana drawn by inebriated monkeys.
ReplyDeleteI think pragma-dialetics offers a good set of rules for arbitrating debate. I'm particularly enamored of the burden-of-proof rule because too often in modern discourse are standpoints offered with no intention of defending it or no solid ground to do so.