Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric

The Forest of Rhetoric is a valuable tool for getting to know the sometimes overwhelming and complicated parts of rhetoric. Since most rhetorical concepts have a Latin origin and name, the website recognizes the innate trepidation an audience might have with getting to know the various parts of rhetoric and creates a simple navigation pane for this knowledge share.

There is a gentle explanation of navigating the various parts of the rhetorical forest, but encourages the reader to “enjoy the simple beauty of a birch tree without knowing it is Betula alba and make use of the shade of a weeping willow without knowing it is in fact Salix babylonica.” The tree-like navigation will take a part of rhetoric (like persuasive appeal) and break it out into its various deployments (logos, pathos, ethos). “Branches of Oratory” is a tree of its own, braches including judicial, deliberative and epideictic oratory. With this simple introduction it was easy to find out that judicial oratory is “forensic” and limited to the speech you might use in a court of law. Deliberative oratory is traditionally the kind of speech one might give to weigh the good and the bad of a situation, like debating a bill in front of the legislature. Epideictic speech is reserved for performance – roasting your friend at the Lion’s Club on Friday night or pounding the bully pulpit for your most passionate cause.

The site also contains an alphabetical glossary of rhetoric-related terminology that I would probably never stumble upon because of its Latin origin. For instance, I quickly learned that brachylogia is “an absence of conjunctions between single words… [resulting in] the effect of a broken, hurried delivery” and that this is a major violation of the canons of rhetoric. “Delivery” – not what is said, but how it is said. Other fun elements of delivery include “tasis… the pronunciation of a word or phrase because of its pleasant sound” (I am thinking Al Gore, 2000 election, “lockbox” speech). The Forest of Rhetoric is a great all around learning resource for exploring a little more than is required about the powerful qualities of rhetoric.

Works Cited

Burton, Gideon O.. Silva Rhetoricae. Brigham Young University.26 Feb 2007. Web. Accessed 4              July 2011. <rhetoric.byu.edu>.

Kairos for All

In this month’s New York Times Magazine, conservative columnist Bill Keller opines that there is no better time than now for the GOP to engage in tacking “the problem of gay marriage”. Like a lot of conservatives, Bill Keller believes marriage as an institution is sort of outdated and miscreated in the first place. He feels that marriage is a sacrament that should be created in the church, not a courtroom… instead of marriage he prefers a sort of “civil union for all” which would contract the benefits of a traditional marriage, but strip the religious sanctimony from the state status.

Keller says the 2012 Presidential election won’t hinge on gay marriage, so why spend an entire New York Times Magazine full color bleed op-ed bit on it in the middle of an all out-election cycle? Because Keller believes it could play a major role.

“Thinking kairotically is to be attuned to the total context of a situation in order to act the right way at the right moment,” according to our text Writing Arguments (Ramage, 118). He points out the trend of states creating “more egalitarian marriage laws” is moving full steam ahead and voter statistics are leading the way. To stay timely, Republicans should get on board. He cites that only 28% of GOP voters accept same sex marriage – while more than 70% of 18-34 year olds surveyed in the latest Gallup poll are in favor.

Keller is quick to admit that his solution is in effect akin to “closing a public school to avoid integration” - but he doesn’t see it that way and quickly escaping the moral reservations of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He calls civil unions for all “classically conservative” in a small government way, and warns conservatives that if they don’t recognize that now is the right time for change they risk being “on the wrong side of history.” That’s a kind of lost timeliness 18-34 year olds will not forgive at the voting booth.

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: Rhetoric with Readings. New York. Pearson, 2010. Print.

Keller, Bill. A Decent Proposal: In which I solve the G.O.P.’s gay-marriage problem.” New          York Times Magazine. New York. 2 July 2011. Print.

Response to Mary Jennifer Johnston's "Pandering to the Audience".

In her blog entry “Pandering to the Audience”, Mary Jennifer Johnston showcases some of my greatest frustrations with current editorial content. While I feel an author has the unfettered right to editorialized to their heart’s desire, when the message is shrouded in language that automatically excludes anyone with a dissenting opinion, there is little room for common ground. This kind of alienation of the audience doesn’t occur only when the topic is emotionally charged, such as the arena of politics.

When I first started technical writing I realized that any final work product I released must be scrubbed of technical language or jargon that was beyond the base level user.  Jargon includes terminology specialized to a specific industry or technology used to do a job that the ordinary layperson wouldn’t understand with knowing the specialized context.  Encountering terminology that is beyond a reader is the quickest route to boredom and despair. I found most of my readers would rather tinker with a software solution until they figured it out or return it instead of reading a didactic manual with technical speak specific to the software developers and database administrators who created the monster.  Eliminating overly complicated instructions or words that are bound to offend the audience will codify your credibility (ethos) with the audience. Creating the appropriate appeal that does not offend (pathos) will keep them reading.

Unit 3, The Anatomy of a Proposal

When it comes to practical proposals, like a t-shirt order for the swim team, the specifics practically propose themselves. There is a definite set of parameters required to place the order including size, color, quantity, design, fabric, and of course price.  Policy proposals are a more broadly outlined course of action that shapes how society ought to respond to perceived problems. Though a policy proposal may offer more abstract ideas leading to an eventual outcome, the main ingredients of a proposal remain the same: a description of the problem, a proposed solution, and justification (Ramage, 311).

Using the description of the problem as a way to garner audience attention is an appropriate use of pathos. The narration of an alarming tale paired with the use of concerning statistics will grab the attention of anyone listening. Even if the problem is sort of vanilla and there are no vital interests at extreme risk of peril, making the tale of woe personal to yourself or personal to the audience means someone is invested, and someone is listening. Packaging the proposal up in a format that best corresponds to invested audience can help reinforce a particular proposal (Ramage, 325). Solutions for an entertainment media outlet can best be presented in a technically solid multimedia presentation across various platforms such as high definition webcast video. Solutions for a local church should probably be kept to a brochure or Microsoft PowerPoint slide show.

Justification is the supporting reasoning behind a specified proposal. There as many proposed solutions as there are perceived problems in any given room; the justification for one solution over the other may help an audience determine the best choice. Generally if a problem is rooted in a moral dilemma, the justification tends to be morally motivated. When a homeless shelter is full, one proposal may be to add new beds even though shelters are already quite crowded. The justification is that society wants to provide more shelter with just as many resources because it is morally unacceptable not to house people in space that could fit a few more. If the problem is rooted in logical dilemmas, such as the missed quota of a manufacturing and production line, the justification is also apt to be logical… like adding more hours of production. Using tools such as the claim type strategy or the enthymeme like in previous chapters can assist in providing the appropriate justification for a specific proposal (Ramage, 318). Having an issue to tackle with a well matched proposal and justification will give good credence with any audience, even if they don’t yet know they have a problem!

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: Rhetoric with Readings. New York. Pearson, 2010. Print.

Proposal, Argue Thyself

Tom Ammiano, the Democratic state Assemblyman of San Francisco, introduced a bill (AB889) protecting domestic workers during the last legislative session that I found to be one of the most effective proposal arguments I have ever been asked to consider.

Domestic workers include hired nannies, housekeepers, gardeners and other domestic help employed directly by the home. I was immediately engaged with Ammiano’s proposal because on the surface it was simply about protecting workers who are outside the realm of much occupational oversight by agencies that would protect individuals in the workplace. Protecting domestic workers by creating an effectual Bill of Rights for workers in the home that would include basic humane treatment of employees like adequate rest and meal periods, written 21 day notice before layoff, and a minimum wage requirement was an easy sell. As an audience I am already pro-labor so I was ripe for this proposal.

The proposal was even timelier and more convincing because it was released on the heels of the highly dramatic gubernatorial race between now Governor Jerry Brown and Republican front runner in the 2010 election, Meg Whitman. It is no surprise that much of the voting public found this argument to be particularly engaging because of the publicity surrounding Meg Whitman and the treatment of her hired help, which was highlighted during the campaign. Whitman’s family had hired domestic help and then fired the undocumented immigrant worker from Mexico when it was revealed to the press that she was not eligible to work in California. Through reporting in the local paper, I found out that Nicandra Santillan Diaz had been employed by the Whitmans for 9 years prior to the exposure and it was known by the family that she was not a documented citizen. Though Whitman referred to Diaz as a “member of the family”, she was promptly fired and her wages were withheld by Whitman.

Whitman was forced to pay up later on, and Diaz tale of woe doesn’t get much better following the campaign – but Ammiano clearly recognized the tenor and tone of public discourse regarding domestic worker’s rights and capitalized. He didn’t have to convince an audience that a problem existed because Whitman and Diaz clearly gave the problem all of the presence that was needed. AB889 just passed the Labor House Committee in the State Assembly on April 14, 2011, and is headed to appropriations…. so I guess I wasn’t the only one who was convinced.

Response to Mark Evans' "Best Argument"

While reading Mark Evans’ “Best Argument”  blog entry detailing ordeal of a sailor summoned before the Disciplinary Review Board on charges of false enlistment, I have to admit my brain went on its own Perry Mason exposition into the life and times of the SONAR Technician with 16 years in service.  Though Evans described a compelling argument by the sailor’s section Chief which saved the sailor’s career despite falsifying his enlistment, the sailor’s motives and subtexts for bailing on self-defense training in the first place raised more questions for me as a reader, than Evans put to rest with the description of the Chief's testimony of valuable experience and time in service.  

Don’t get me wrong, I am not arm-chair-quarterbacking the Chief or the DRB. However, while I imagined the situation and what kind of evidence might have been presented, I did begin to wonder what made the sailor want to avoid the training in the first place? Was the revealing  a domestic violence conviction worth avoiding the physicality of strenuous training? Did the sailor think the exposure to ground fighting or choke holds might stir his violent past behavior? Could the training spur on a re-introduction of violent behavior that is more detrimental to the family of a past offender than being without a job? All unknowns from my perspective, of course.

For the sake of argument – so to speak - I still agree that the Chief’s argument was convincing, but my mind keeps wandering back to the sailor’s original motivation and I’m not totally sold on his retention as the “best outcome”.

Unit 2, Response to Reading

I recently wrote a letter to Speaker of the House John Bohner about the pejorative use of the word “Obamacare” to describe health care reform. I watch a lot of Sunday morning shows and keep up with my reading in the New York Times but I am not exactly a big fan of the legislation that make up what is collectively known as health care reform under President Obama’s administration. To be sure my letter developed credibility with the reader right away I expressed my knowledge of health care reform, fiscal responsibility, and budget negotiations. This element of ethos prepped the reader for a “trustworthy” persona conveying moderate tone and is clearly informed (Ramage, 111).

At the time I did an extensive amount of rhetorical prep work in compiling my letter, but I didn’t identify a strategy for this kind of work until I read the Unit 2 assigned reading. I knew that to be heard by his office about this strictly non-partisan affair, I would need to plan my argument with an appeal to our shared values. I began by crafting a list of assumptions in my head about values that Speaker Bohner and I share and hold in high esteem such as the Office of the Speaker of the House, the Office of the President, and the promotion of civil discourse. I could be wrong about these assumptions but it would be somewhat embarrassing for the reader of the letter if we were so I stuck with this.

Letters to Congressional offices are typically read by staffers so I knew my message would need to be short, sweet, and on point to be effective with the initial reader. It did end up going on for an entire page. Right away I asked myself “what’s your beef with Speaker Bohner” in order to frame my argument most succinctly. In the text I discovered the “enthymeme”, or the core of an argument. The enthymeme is a general claim of an argument and the reason the claim should be supported, but the reader must be in accord with the underlying assumptions (Ramage, 74) like our shared appreciation of civil discourse. Though the core of the argument may seem like the obvious ingredient, logical appeal can be overrun with emotional appeals for a purpose. Crafting the logos, or reasoning for my argument, can be managed with the enthymeme. My enthymeme consisted of a claim that House members stop referring to health care reform parts as “Obamacare” because it would promote a more civil public discourse. The underlying assumption the reader/audience supplied in this case was that promoting more civil public discourse is an important part of healthy democracy.

In order to fully develop an argument for a reader/audience that doesn’t already agree with me, the Toulmin System asks a writer/speaker to identify the audience’s buy in to certain grounds or “warrants”, (Ramage, 76). To convince Speaker Bohner to back costly legislation I might provide grounds such as statistics and data or testimony from an expert about why he must act. My cause is on the cheap side but could cost him political capital so I kept my grounds limited to giving a personal narrative which included three declarations: use of the term “Obamacare” was disrespectful and dismissive of actual reforms needed to bring down the high cost of health care and make actual budget and deficit impacts; I did not always support some of the foreign and fiscal policies of past Congress and President George W. Bush, but as a soldier demonstrated a professional image; my opinion that promoting civil discourse was important to the relationship between the State and those who consent to be governed. I was sure Speaker Bohner would accept my grounds, so accepting my argument shouldn’t be far off.  Identifying myself as a veteran and civic minded were shared in order spark Speaker Bohner’s beliefs and (profound) emotions about our civic responsibility. This layer of pathos is a legitimate appeal to “deepen response to an issue” (Ramage, 112).

The Rhetorical context of my letter to the Office of the Speaker required little hard evidence to be representative of typical moderate voters and get my patriotic point across. Though I never presented any data or testimony, I did identify the use of the Fulkerson’s STAR criteria after the fact to evaluate whether or not evidence I supplied was sufficient, typical, accurate, and relevant (Ramage, 90). My personal experience as a veteran and a voter familiar with current health care reforms might be sufficient evidence for a personal appeal, but generally personal experiences are considered to be unverifiable and subject to hasty generalizations (Ramage, 91). Data from field or observational research enhances the credibility of the author but could be criticized as atypical or insufficient (Ramage, 92). Data from interviews or surveys expand experiences and give a lot more credibility to an argument, and interviews might add to pathos with personal stories but critics will always point out that methodology and design could be flawed in survey type evidence (Ramage, 92). Testimony from experts would be applicable to my letter if I could find an expert that could provide some context for the negative impact of pejorative language on civil discourse, but critics will always question an “expert” credentials. Statistical data probably doesn’t exist for my case-scenario, but numbers that demonstrated an increase in domestic political violence would provide a snapshot of cause-effect relationship between speech and violence – which is weakened by subjective interpretation (Ramage, 93). Hypothetical arguments or case-scenarios have a strong imaginative appeal. It would be easy to narrate a situation like the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords, however, conveying in “inevitability” of violence or using hyperbole would be counter to the core of my argument: a call to civility in speech. Skeptics of hypotheticals will always have a counter scenario argument so this is among the weaker types of evidence.

Framing the evidence to support a claim requires an ethical balance of the necessary evidence to prove a claim and persuade and audience based on their potential pre-existing assumptions and values (Ramage, 97). Logical appeal and the appropriate evidence to support claims of the author/speaker and to persuade the audience is housed here in the “angle of vision” (Ramage, 94). All of these considerations helped me to craft an effective letter, but I can’t helping thinking I could have presented more evidence and in a more effective manner after absorbing the text.

 Works Cited

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: Rhetoric with Readings. New York. Pearson, 2010. Print.