Thoughts on Rhetoric

Week 6--Jackson, Topoi, Ari vs. Plato, and My Teaching

In what ways do you think Jesse Jackson's speech makes use of topoi and concepts from Aristotle's Rhetoric? What are the key differences between Aris and Plastico? Which are you--Aristotelian or Platonic--in your teaching and/or work?

Concepts from Aristotle’s rhetoric in Jackson speech

Jackson uses several concepts from Aristotle. He uses a common topic—what is better— and enthymeme in “President Carter restored honor to the White House after Watergate. He gave many of us a special opportunity to grow. For his kind words, for his unwavering commitment to peace in the world…” He compares the Carter presidency with the Nixon presidency and claims that it is better because it restores “honor.” He also uses enthymeme in this section. By saying that Carter restores hope then the audience must be aware of the Watergate scandal and its repercussions.

Jackson refers to the “New South” several times to argue that things are better and will be better for people of color living in the south. Instead of roadblocks, they will find many opportunities, just like immigrants found in New York.
In the section
Twenty-four years ago, the late Fannie Lou Hamer and Aaron Henry - who sits here tonight, from Mississippi - were locked out on the streets in Atlantic City - the head of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. But tonight, a black and white delegation from Mississippi is headed by Ed Cole, a black man from Mississippi - twenty-four years later.
Many were lost in the struggle for the right to vote. Jimmy Lee Jackson, a young student, gave his life; Viola Liuzzo, a White mother from Detroit, called "nigger lover," and brains blown out at point-blank range; [Michael] Schwerner, [Andrew] Goodman and [James] Chaney - two Jews and a black - found in a common grave, bodies riddled with bullets in Mississippi; the four darling little girls in a church in Birmingham, Alabama. They died that we might have a right to live.
he refers to the Civil Rights Movement and many atrocious acts that were committed during that time. Here he uses two types of artistic proofs: the example or historical facts to make his argument that he deserves to be standing before the crowd. In the same section, he uses enthymeme to appeal to the emotion of the crowd.

He is obviously aware of his audience since he tries to “include” as many types of people in his speech. He concentrates on images of Christianity and then mentions the Jews and the crossroads in which different people can find common ground. To me it seemed like he was saying, “this is me, you may not be part of me but we can still coexist.” He was creating a message of inclusion and exclusion at the same time.

Many of the techniques he uses expect the audience to accept his view of the state of affairs when in reality the situation is different. Reality is that people of color still face many difficulties in the south and across the country. People may sit together but their differences still separate them and it is naïve to think that they don’t. I may be more of a cynic than most people who were part of the audience and I tend to distrust the message when it is clearly taking advantage of pathos which he does from the beginning.

Differences between Plato and Aristotle

One of the key differences between Plato and Aristotle is the type of reasoning which they consider legitimate. Plato favored dialectic, while Aristotle thinks that dialectic is important but so is rhetorical reasoning to arrive at practical knowledge using information which is accessible to the audience. He also values observation and scientific demonstration and rhetoric which can be used to share the knowledge achieved through observation and dialectical reasoning with others. He is interested in providing a systematic method which others can use to arrive at some type of knowledge. He acknowledges that the search for absolute truth may not be very useful to society especially because there are those who are unable or unwilling to grasp the concept.

My Teaching

In my teaching I am much more Aristotelian than Platonic. Even though I do think that writing can be used to discover knowledge that was at some point unknowable or hidden (although I don’t claim this is universal knowledge with a T), I am much more pragmatic in my teaching and understand that the student needs specific skills which he must learn or which need to be reinforced in my class. I think that the system which Aristotle provides serves as a scaffold for the beginning writer especially since it reflects the structure of the pieces which students read. Even though the students may never feel comfortable or competent using that structure, it is important for them to recognize the methods which are consistently used to communicate (at least in our culture). Since one of the primary objectives of the beginning writing classes is to prepare them for “academic” writing, the student who doesn’t learn about these structures will be at a disadvantage in many of their courses.

posted by Prof Santoy @ 6:38 PM