Writing Project 1: Mapping a Rhetorical Ecology

CHOOSE AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF A RHETORICAL TEXT

You’ve probably noticed that the world around you is full of rhetorical situations, textual objects and communicative acts.  In this 4-6-page essay you will choose and analyze a text that makes an argument about and/or regarding disruption. Look for a text that has interesting rhetorical features and eloquently makes a claim about disruption. In other words, pick an excellent example of rhetoric that uses all three of the major appeals (logos, pathos, ethos) and is free of logical fallacies.  You can pick from argumentative genres such as, but not limited to, editorials, polemic speeches, political cartoons, videos (5 minutes or less) published or broadcast within the last five years.  You could also choose a monument or other publicly displayed object that has been installed for longer than five years if it is currently viewable to the public (take a photo to include with your essay). 

ESSAY QUESTION

First, thoroughly introduce the specific rhetorical situation of your text (Kairos, narrative, stakeholders).   Gathering this important cultural context could mean doing some research, so be sure to document your sources in MLA style.  Then, include the audience for the text and the text’s overarching claim. Explain how the text uses rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, ethos) to support its claim(s). Discuss any interesting rhetorical structures and how those structures appeal to the targeted audience. Relate your text back to ideas discussed in the curriculum using these questions to brainstorm ideas:  What arguments does your text make about disruption or disruptive innovation?  How does the text use rhetoric to support the arguments? How is the rhetoric of disruption appropriate for the targeted audience? How does the text synthesize the appeals? Is the text persuasive? What are its rhetorical strengths? Weaknesses? 

Hint:  if you chose an image or video, give specific examples of how colors, lines, sounds, and other features make rhetorical appeals.   

MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS        

• Your essay MUST be on a topic related to our course theme of disruption.
• Include a clear thesis statement
• Invent an arrangement/organizational strategy that best showcases your findings and analysis
• Length: 4-6 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins,12-font (not including the Works Cited)
• MLA formatting
• Parenthetical Citations and Works Cited—the MLA guide in Purdue has strategies for citing unusual sources. Hint, hint! 
• In the Works Cited, include a link to the text (or an image if you took a photo), so I can quickly find what you picked.   
• Plagiarism results in a zero (0) as stated in the syllabus.

Text-Topic Suggestions:

Choose any text that makes an argument about the following:

Political upheaval

Revolutionary innovation

Deep social change

Growing political and social justice consciousness

Ecological upheaval

Changing information dissemination 

Economic Disruption

Cultural Disruption

Criteria for Excellent Rhetorical Text:

1. Kairos–is timely, exigent, capitalizes on contextual events/situations, emerges out of an event

2. Stakeholders–engages people with vested interests, beliefs, and values

3. Makes an argument: Claim (implicit or explicit/secondary or primary), Reasons (reasons to believe (logos), reasons to feel (pathos), reasons to trust (ethos), Evidence (facts, stats, data, studies, examples from contemporary events, examples from history, expert testimony, good ol’ common sense, personal experience, anecdotal evidence)

4. Interesting structures (color, sounds, lines, images, juxtaposition of these structures, syntax features, diction, paragraphing)

5. Free of fallacies…and misinformation…and overt bias that hurts the info

6. Audience: the text reflects the audience’s needs, values, expectations, knowledge, and awareness  

January 25, 2022

WP1 Steps:

1. Choose an awesome topic that interests you and is within the disruption umbrella
2. Research! Research to find an excellent example of rhetoric (art of persuasion) that weighs in/creates an argument about your topic

How does racial profiling of Black and Brown people contribute to poverty in America?

Is it true…?

Did it happen…? 

How do we define racial profiling? 

What are the causes of racial profiling? What are the effects?

What should we do about racial profiling? 

Broad:

Racism

America

Narrow:

Racial Profiling

New York City

Johnson City, TX

Try Boolean Terms

And-will result in sources that include both terms

Or-will result in sources that use either terms (sometimes not both)

Look for Iterations/Synonyms of terms that may be politicized…

Immigrant

Aliens

Illegals

Nationals

Refugee

Undocumented

Border Crisis

Border Control 

Informative vs. Viewpoint (Persuasive/Rhetorical) Sources

Informative Sources:

–just give the facts of the event/situation; are not interested in persuading your to believe one way or another

–also don’t care if you trust them–so they’ll use third person pronouns

–Attribute ideas/beliefs/opinions to other people

–Diction is not emotionally provocative/evocative–

–with videos, listen for monotone voices 

Viewpoint Sources:

–want to persuade their audience to believe something

–they often use first person pronouns, such as “I” “me” “us” “we” 

Why would a person who’s trying to persuade someone use first-person pronouns? What’s the effect? 

1. To show that they have personal experience (more trusting) 
2. To show that they are members of a community (more trusting)
3. To show that you’re owning the idea–taking responsibility for the idea
4. To show goodwill towards others 

–Express ideas that are not attributed to other people 

–Uses STRONG emotional language 

1. Honorific: positive spin on the topic
2. Pejorative: negative spin on the topic

Is this diction honorific or pejorative?

“Illegals busting through our borders and stealing our jobs”

January 27, 2022

February 1, 2022

Analyzing Stakeholders

People become stakeholders in a controversy when they feel they are or will be so affected that they must become directly involved. The stakeholders in any controversy/text are the ones most likely to write opinion columns, to collect signatures, to donate money, and to organize protests. The rest of us—those in the public who are indirectly affected by a controversy’s outcome—tend to listen and vote, but we do not tend to get involved. Of course, a controversy with more stakeholders is likely to be more important. Consider the ongoing debate about the U.S. healthcare system. We are all stakeholders in this controversy because we all depend upon doctors, hospitals, and other medical services. As a result, this controversy will not go away anytime soon.

Knowing who the stakeholders are and why they care will help you understand why the controversy has taken a particular shape. In the current healthcare debate, for instance, you might wonder why people argue about whether all states must expand Medicaid. If you really want to give healthcare to everyone, then expanding coverage to include the poor sounds like a good idea, something we can all get behind. But to see why some people disagree, let’s think about two groups of stakeholders: Some politicians have been elected to state office. They have an interest for maintaining local control over what their government does. A federal requirement or incentive to expand Medicaid takes some of that local control away. Other politicians, especially those elected to national office have a stake in expanding federal authority over state governments, especially when that authority allows them to do things they think right and good. So two stakeholders—local politicians and federal politicians—argue about expanding Medicaid. Federal politicians say the Medicaid expansion is a good extension of the federal government’s authority. Local politicians say the Medicaid expansion is a bad infringement on state government. This example is of course oversimplified. Many members of the U.S. Congress side with their state governments because they want to reduce the size of the federal government or for other reasons—the Medicaid expansion is costly, may be ineffective, etc. And many state officials favor the Medicaid expansion because they believe it will bring extra money to their local economies. Though oversimplified, this example is useful because it highlights two kinds of stakeholders and the reasons they have taken particular positions in this controversy. If you can similarly identify the stakeholders in your controversy, then you can begin to imagine what the people might say, based on their interests, their beliefs, and their values.

Interests. These are the stakes in a controversy. People become interested typically because they are affected. Depending on the controversy’s outcome, they stand to win or lose something. In the healthcare controversy, politicians stand to win or lose authority. The healthcare controversy touches on many financial interests as well. Healthcare providers and medical-device manufacturers might gain or lose money. Patients might pay more or less for care that is better or worse. People might pay more or less for their insurance. A quick reflection reveals four stakeholders with financial interests: healthcare providers, medical-device manufacturers, patients, and insurance-policy holders. But not all interests are financial. A stakeholder’s interests may be aesthetic. Someone owning a house in a neighborhood may care about a building development because it will be ugly or beautiful. And separate interests may overlap. The same person who frets about that unsightly new shopping mall might also worry that her property value will go down once this eyesore is visible from her front yard. What do they stand to win? Lose? Consider the following: authority, money, property, rights, agency, aesthetic value, faith, power, beauty, prestige, friends, family, etc.

Again—when you try to identify stakeholders according to their interests, ask yourself: Who stands to win or lose if this controversy is decided one way or the other? What will this person/organization gain? What might be taken away or reduced? Keep in mind that the interest can be anything that a person or an organization cares about.

Values. When we talk about interests, we focus on the things that directly affect individuals. When we talk about values, we focus on things people care about even when they are not personally or directly affected by those things. I have an interest in my own house and architecture. I want to protect my house so that I will have a place to live. I may want to protect your house so that the bungalow style of home architecture will live on. You have an interest in your own marriage so that you will have a stable and loving relationship. But you may value the institution of marriage because it has been historically important. An art collector has an interest in a painting he recently acquired. But he and others who don’t own art may still value all art because it embodies creativity. People become stakeholders in controversies not just because they are directly affected (not just because they have an interest in its outcome) but also because they value something affected by the controversy’s outcome. The ongoing controversy about abortion is a great example of a disagreement featuring stakeholders who are principally value-holders. Many of those who care most deeply about abortion—such as the Roman Catholic clergy—do not provide abortions, have never had an abortion, have never been pregnant by rape or incest, and will never have an abortion. But they value their version of life—which they believe begins at conception—thus they argue against a woman’s right to choose. People become stakeholders in controversies not just because they are directly affected but also because they value something affected by the controversy’s outcome.

Beliefs.  Our interests and our values affect our opinions, but so do our beliefs. For instance, in Texas, people are arguing about how to regulate a new method of drilling called fracking. Those living in areas where this drilling happens are likely to believe that fracking affects the land and the water supply because they have experienced these effects first-hand. Those involved in the industry are likely to believe that fracking is safe because they know the precautions taken while drilling. And those who enforce current regulations are likely to believe that there may be a problem with fracking because they know how many reported violations have occurred. The town resident might have first-hand knowledge of ground tremors and pungent well water. The petroleum engineer might know all the efforts taken to prevent contamination and to monitor seismic activity. The environmental regulator might know of many complaints about tremors and water contamination, but she might also know that the investigations remain inconclusive. The resident, based on her beliefs, may favor stricter regulations. The engineer may oppose any new regulations, and the environmental regulator might support some new regulations to prevent possible damage that, as of yet, cannot be verified.

While you should think about stakeholders in terms of their interests, their values, and their beliefs, we caution against any attempt to pigeonhole a stakeholder. When you are trying to identify stakeholders, start with real people. Then ask yourself these questions: What affects this person? What does she care about? What does he believe? And how do these interests, these values, and these beliefs lead him or her to take this position in the controversy/text? If you can explain one stakeholder’s position based on his or her interests, values, and beliefs, then…you can predict what similar people might feel or think.

Feb. 3, 2022: How to write a formal academic summary of the text you’re analyzing for WP1.

Argument Breakdown Summary

The argument-breakdown summary tries to take the argument apart and emphasize both its key components and their relation to one another. You point out, for example, the main claim and the key reasons supporting that claim without exactly repeating the argument’s arrangement. I suggest breaking the argument down into its principal claim, its main reasons, and its evidence. Later in the the paper, you’ll analyze these parts of an argument in much greater detail.

Here are important definitions: The principal claim is the main idea, the feeling, or the action that an author wants the audience to believe, to feel, or to do after reading, hearing, or seeing an argument. Often, when paraphrasing a principal claim, it’s helpful to use the following vocabulary:

The speaker wants the audience to believe ____________________.

The speaker wants the audience to feel _______________________.

The speaker wants the audience to do ________________________.

For example, I may want to convince you never to eat lime-green jello. That’s my principal claim– “The speaker wants to convince the audience to not eat lime green jello.”

But just saying, “Don’t eat the green jello,” won’t be very convincing. So I have to give you some reasons. Reasons are things that we come up with when we’re trying to convince someone. Reasons can usually be expressed after the word “because”: “Don’t eat lime green jello because it’s disgusting.” Reasons are there to support the principal claim. Evidence is the information we find when we’re trying to convince someone. Types of evidence include testimony, statistics, and examples. Specific mention of particular people, statements, events, and quotes–all these things count as evidence. And all this evidence can support either a reason or a principal claim. To continue with our example: “Don’t eat lime green jello [my principal claim] because it’s disgusting [my reason in support of my principal claim] which I know because Joelle told me she tasted it, and she almost threw up [my evidence in support of my reason].”

In order to write your argument breakdown summary, we will suggest the following steps:

1. First label (underline or highlight) the principal claim. If the author doesn’t state the principal claim explicitly, summarize the claim in your own words: a. Important ideas are often found in the title or subtitle of an article. b. Important ideas are often at the beginning and/or end of an argument, the parts that the reader is likely to remember. If an idea appears both at the beginning and at the end, it is certainly important. c. Important ideas are often stated very directly in short, clear sentences. d. Important ideas follow a phrase or sentence that indicates a conclusion: “Based on my experiences, I feel that … ”; “Our research leads us to conclude … ”; “The data demonstrate …”; “The above analysis proves…”
2. Then, label all the evidence–the specific examples, statistics, real people or events that get mentioned in the article.
3. Finally, look for the reasons.

You will find the last step the hardest because people rarely say how they’re trying to convince an audience. If people announced their plans to persuade, audiences would rarely be persuaded. You might say to someone, “Now I’m going to persuade you by mentioning these three reasons and these five pieces of evidence.” But when you say something like this, you put the audience on guard. They will likely try to resist your efforts at persuasion. The better strategy is to simply say what you believe and to give your reasons and your evidence in clear and plain language. Since the person who argues will rarely label the parts of her argument, the person summarizing must find and label these parts.

Analyzing a text/rhetor/discourse ethos, logos, pathos

First: Identify the text’s claim/purpose. For help, ask yourself: what is the topic of this text? Next, ask: what is the text saying about that topic?

After you identify the text’s main purpose or claim, ask: how does the speaker/rhetor support the claim? You’ll answer this question by looking for evidence via ethos, pathos, and logos in the text (and outside the text per situated ethos). 

Ethos: reasons to trust

Ethos can be built in two ways: situated and invented.

1. Situated Ethos: the situated information is the evidence—the information that the audience already knows about the speaker. Knowing that someone is a research scientist, a university professor, an award-winning journalist, or a famous inventor will make an audience more inclined to trust what she says.
2. Invented Ethos: this refers to the information that the text/rhetor presents to establish ethos. Look for the following textual elements that earn an audience’s trust.

1. Knowledge of the subject: Someone who shows you that she’s learned a lot of information about a subject is someone you will likely trust as an authority even if she doesn’t have the credentials.
2. An ability to respond appropriately to the situation: A writer’s style shows you that he is smart enough speak appropriately to the situation.
3. Membership in a community: We tend to trust people who belong to our community because they share our interests, our values, and our concerns. The speaker might show the audience that she belongs to their community by referencing common knowledge. By mentioning information about herself or her past. By confessing interests and values that the community will recognize.
4. Demonstration of goodwill: We trust people who show us that they have our best interests at heart. The speaker might directly say that he wants to help the audience. Or he might show, through some other gesture, that he wants the audience to prosper.

Other considerations for visual texts:

Music in the background of a car commercial can show the audience that the company knows their taste and belongs to their community—country and western for a commercial that airs in rural Texas, hip-hop for one tatt plays in Houston. A U.S. flag pin on a senator’s lapel shows that she belongs to the national community. Wearing a fleece pullover or a casual shirt (instead of a suit) while touring a disaster site shows that a U.S. president can dress appropriately to the situation. We trust him because he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and fix this mess.

A reason to trust can be any element that encourages the audience to imagine the speaker as an authority, as a member of the community, as someone who understands the situation, or as someone who cares about the audience.

Feb. 8, 2022

Pathos: Reasons to Feel

While reasons to trust focus on the speaker, reasons to feel focus on the subject. A persuasive speaker wants to earn your trust. He also wants to move your emotions. Just as a reason to trust may be dishonest, a reason to feel may be manipulative. Tear-jerker movies proves this to us every day. You come across a manipulative reason to feel anytime you find yourself asking, “Why was I crying at the end of this ridiculous movie?” Nevertheless, just as there are many good reasons to take pride in your country, to love your family, to miss your hometown, and to cherish your friends. To decide what makes a good reason to feel, you must ask yourself, does the object merit the sentiment? Is a romance movie worth crying over? Does a work of art or architecture truly inspire? Does a sex scandal really deserve so much outrage? To find reasons to feel in an argument, you should look for three things: (1) images, (2) values, and (3) honorific or pejorative language.

• An image is a visual presentation of something people care about. An image can be a picture or a video. Look at all those sad dogs on the TV. They make the audience feel pity. And that pity moves them to attend next week’s SPCA-sponsored “adopt-a-pet” event. Look at the pictures of the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial or the Texas Capitol in a textbook for a class on U.S. government. They make the audience feel civic pride. And that pride moves them to vote in next Tuesday’selection. Watch the videos of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. They made a nation so angry we went to war. Sometimes, mere suggestion within a video or film image is extremely moving (a closed casket, a locked door, a distant scream int eh night). The audience is left to their vivid imaginations. An image can also be a vivid prose description of something. Instead of showing you the picture, the speaker can explain what it looks like. Sometimes this verbal description is more moving that the picture itself. The speaker can focus and elaborate on details that the audience might overlook.
• Images move us by putting things in front of our eyes. Values move us by putting things in front of our minds. A value is not tangible. You can’t pick it up, look at it, or even touch it. But you care about it, nonetheless. Injustice makes you angry. Liberty makes you proud. Ingratitude makes you resentful. None of these things can be touched or photographed. But a speaker can mention them in order to give the audience a reason to feel. If a speaker wants you to feel angry about recent laws that require physicians who perfum abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital, then he might appeal to the value of accessible healthcare.

“These laws, which claim to protect women’s health and well-being, really restrict services. Since so few abortion providers actually have admitting privileges, most will have to close. The remaining clinics will be so few and far between that people living in rural areas will, in effect, be denied medical care. Healthcare, especially reproductive healthcare for women, should be widely available and easily accessible.”

Since our values cannot be described, they must be explained. A speaker can show that something—such as laws that require hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers—contributes to or takes away from something the audience values and/or has interests. If certain specific laws detract from accessible healthcare, then the audience will transfer their feelings about accessible healthcare coverage to these laws. They will feel angry toward anything that threatens accessible healthcare.

To illustrate a value’s abstract but moving quality, consider another example: freedom of speech. Speakers have tied the freedom of speech to a range of things that they want us to care about: corporate donations to political action groups; demonstrations at soldiers’ funerals; prayer in public schools. Anytime someone insists that an action will allow or hinder freedom of speech, she gives the audience a reason to feel good or bad about that action. A third example illustrates further: a city’s unique culture. Anytime someone asks you to “keep Austin weird” by “buying local,” he’s giving you a reason to like a local store as much as you like the city it’s in.

• Honorific and Pejorative Language: Here, we encourage you to look at the style of presentation. Speakers use honorific and pejorative language to enhance the emotional impact of an image or a value. Honorific language praises something that people already care about (or that they should care about). “liberty,” described honorifically, “becomes “our cherished liberty.” The Texas Capital becomes a “Magisterial statehouse.” Pejorative language denounces something that people should already dispute. Described pejoratively, conscientious objectors to a war become “draft dodgers.” Describe pejoratively, regulations on automatic weapons become “threats to our Second-Amendment rights.” So are, we have focused on language, but we should emphasize that “honorific” and “pejorative” can apply to many efforts an enhancing the emotions that people already feel. A photographer who wants to honorifically present a public figure will capture him in the best light. A photographer who wants to pejoratively depict the same public figure will zoom in to capture all his wrinkles.

Logos: Reasons to Believe

Like reasons to feel, reasons to believe focus on the subject. Rather than asking the audience to experience an emotion, however, reasons to believe ask the audience to arrive at a conclusion. Every reason to believe asks the audience to conclude something based on something else. A speaker asks the audience to conclude that another full-blown U.S. war in the Middle East would be an unwinnable mess. She supports this argument by comparing a war in the Middle East to the Vietnam War or to the more recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A speaker asks the audience to conclude that the president of a company should be blamed for its corruption based on the common knowledge that a fish rots from the head down. A speaker asks the audience to conclude that people over the age of 18 should be allowed to drink alcohol because these same people can vote in elections and serve in the military. In each of these cases, you have two elements: a conclusion and a proof. The proof leads to the conclusion.

The proof comes in lots of flavors: facts, stats, expert testimony, examples from history, examples from current events, data, studies, polls, the speaker’s personal experience, basic common sense, etc.

While the proof and the conclusion are generally easy to locate, there is often a third hidden element, the assumption. This third element is much more difficult to identify because it often remains unstated. Most reasons to believe assume that the audience already believes something else. Based on this assumed belief combined with the proof, the speaker asks the audience to accept the conclusion.

Ways an article could present proof:

• Stats
• Data
• Facts
• Expert testimony
• Examples from history
• Examples from current events
• Personal experience
• Anecdotal evidence (stories about other people)
• Comparisons
• Difference
• Causation
• Cause and effect
• Definitions
• Common sense
• Analogy–type of special comparisons 

Ethos - when a persuasive writer uses proof to get the audience to trust them. (knowledge, membership in a community, goodwill, style)

Logos - when a persuasive writer uses proof to get the audience to believe - to accept a conclusion.

Pathos - when a persuasive writer uses proof to inspire the audience to feel an emotion and to remember what they value.

Your WP1 seeks to analyze how the rhetorical appeals function to both convince the implied, intended or real audience AND support the claim. 

Synthesis: find one piece of evidence that functions as logos, pathos, and ethos concurrently. In this synthesis paragraph, unpack how that happens. Synthesis can be your paper’s last paragraph. YAY!!! 

Steps to analysis:

1. Identify the text’s claim or purpose.
2. Find the persuasive element (evidence in the text of situated ethos evidence).
3. Identify this element as a kind of reason (reason to feel—pathos; reason to trust—ethos; reason to believe—logos).
4. Explain the effect that this reason should have on the audience.
5. Explain how this reason relates to the reasons or to the principal claim.

WP1 RUBRIC: Please email me by Wednesday PM if you don’t agree with this rubric!

1. Kairos of the text: what inspired/enabled this rhetorical text to be created? What events preceded the creation of this text? Tell the story of the text’s creation.
2. Stakeholders: who has a stake in controversy? What do these stakeholders value? Believe? What do they have to gain or lose?
3. Brief summary of the rhetorical text. End the summary with your thesis statement: Text’s claim + the rhetorical tools that the text employs: In John Roberts’s article, “We Should Have Impeached Trump,” Roberts uses logos, pathos, and ethos to claim that….
4. Overview of the rhetorical text’s audience. Who is the real audience? Who is the implied audience?
5. Situated ethos of the author…reasons to trust per the author’s cred.
6. Invented ethos…reasons to trust that emerge from the text’s rhetoric: knowledge about the topic, goodwill towards the audience, membership in a community, appropriate style…
7. Logos…reasons to believe…when the author gives proof to support a conclusion.
8. Pathos…reasons to feel. When a text gives proof so that the audience feels some kind of emotion. When a text gives proof so that the audience remembers what they value.
9. Synthesize the appeals. Which rhetoric is all three appeals (logos, pathos, and ethos) concurrently? Which proof examples can function as all three kinds of appeals?
10. Rhetorical Strengths and Weaknesses (optional).
11. Significance of the topic (optional).
12. MLA formatting for the works cited and in-text citations.
13. Style and Mechanics (try your best). 
14. Organization (paragraphing and transitions between paragraphs and within paragraphs…try your best). Ask yourself a super simple question: what’s the goal of my paragraph? am I showing a logical connection between paragraphs?