Download
1 / 19
190 likes | 517 Vues
Chapter 2 – Theories of Persuasion. Borchers: “a theory is an answer to a question” (p. 28). Watson: not only answers, questions themselves are impossible without theory. theoria : greek; way of seeing; vista theater - place for theoria.
E N D
Chapter 2 – Theories of Persuasion Borchers: “a theory is an answer to a question” (p. 28) Watson: not only answers, questions themselves are impossible without theory
theoria: greek; way of seeing; vista theater - place for theoria
In our time, theory is thought to be something that only muddies the water; people say they only want facts, not some “theory”. ex. evolution, media violence, why people don’t vote
but this comment is never innocent!! i.e. “just a theory” only said when there is disagreement ALL perception is theory dependent. Theory Cycle: Asking, Observing, Theorizing, Checking, Re-asking
Criteria of Theory: 1. Organization: does it crunch information? 2. Predictiveness: does it generalize to new situations? 3. Heurism: Does it stimulate new thought? Does it lead to new Eurekas? 4. Parsimony: is it no more complex than needed? 5. Consistency: does it fit with existing knowledge? 6. Refutability: can it be tested? 7. Imagination: is it interesting?
Attitudes appropriate to Theory *no sacred cows: nothing off-limits *fundamental question: Why? Why not? *deals with possible, not just actual. *argument is central to theory & inquiry. two theories of persuasion: Aristotelian and Semiotic
Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE) “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”
“It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.” Function of demonstration is to provide PROOF different kinds of proof for different kinds of claims for different kinds of situations and on and on and on…. We’ll get to more of Aristotle and rhetoric in Week 9
For Aristotle, if a speaker did not convince their audience to follow the proposed course of action, then the speaker was more than likely to blame: “Rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly.” i.e. speakers’ fault if “incorrect” or “unjust” decisions are made; speaker must have used to arranged the speech incorrectly, used an inappropriate style, not memorized it absolutely, or delivered the speech poorly
BUT… is persuasion really such a sure-fire game? is it be possible to observe and perform all of the “correct” elements of persuasion but still fail to convince an audience? haven’t we all had this experience at some point? do audiences bring something to the table too?
Semiotics: theory of meaning via signs/symbols (Saussure, Peirce, Eco, Bakhtin, late 19th - 20th century, structuralist) sign = A sign is a pattern of data which, when perceived, brings to mind something other than itself. So, what does this have to do with persuasion? LOTS…
What comes to mind when you think about this image? • a large African or Indian animal? • memories of a trip to the zoo? • images recalled from a favorite book read as a child, or tv show, or a movie? • a political party? • the notion of memory (as in: "a large animal with a trunk and big ears that never forgets ...").
whatever the sign brings to mind, the concept is related to your past experience with the object. One of the advantages of the semiotic model is that it is able to highlight relationships among the sign, the concepts the sign brings to mind, and the individual experience of the reader.
notice how none of the relationships between sign-concept-object are necessary relationships (as Aristotle had them) notice in particular that the relation between sign (word) and object is conventional
there is no necessary relationship between And E-L-E-P-H-A-N-T or “elephant” relationship may not be necessary BUT it is certainly powerful ex. the miracle worker Q. What would an Aristotelian perspective on deaf/blind people look like?
for Aristotle, the persuasiveness of a speech is totally up to the speaker from a semiotics perspective, persuasion is a union (or perceived union) of the experiences and attitudes of speaker and audience. • presidential use of the term “freedom” and “democracy” • “terrorist” • “college student” • “value” efficiency” “power”
for Aristotle: ex. A large, four-legged mammal found in India and Africa IS
according to semiotics: • a large African or Indian animal • memories of a trip to the zoo • images recalled from a favorite book read as a child, or tv show, or a movie • a political party • the notion of memory (as in: "a large animal with a trunk and big ears that never forgets ..."). COULD BE depending on many different factors, most of which the speaker has very little control hence the need for theory to provide assumptions that make an explanation possible
regarding Burke reading for thursday read sections: “Identification and Consubstantiality” (p. 20-23) “Persuasion” (p. 49-55) “Identification” (p. 55 – 59) • Key things to watch for and think about: • definitions of “identification” and “consubstantiality” • differences between persuasion and identification • why is this difference important?
