After reading this week’s chapter, I was struck with the relationship between audience and the body of an argument. What really captivated my interest was how much power an audience had over the body of an argument and how influential the audience was to the kind(s) of logical proof that a debater would utilize. In other words, the audience dictates whether the orator will use enthymemes, maxims, similar (or contrary) examples, an analogy, a fictional or historical example or a rhetorical example. One could even argue that the situation is just as important. However, I believe that every audience is situational, since they are gathered for a particular reason and thus, the audience members matter more because they are the ones who will remember it, pass the message forth (either by writing or speaking about it) and they are the ones that the speaker addresses the message to. In this blog, I will try and elaborate on this point.
Last week, we talked about getting to the heart of the matter and how we must move from general overstatements to specific examples to support claims. This week’s chapter supports this idea and focuses on the part of a speech (argument) were it matters must, the “body”. The chapter discusses how the introduction and conclusion are to move from general to specific or specific to general but the major area of argument, the body, should be specialized and resort to certain logical proof(s) that appeal to one’s audience. After all, “In some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes… Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause” (Crowley and Hawhee 158). The whole point of writing and debating is to express (or communicate) a particular perspective and in order to communicate that point there needs to be audience. Thus, it is vital to any speaker or writer to know the workings of his or her audience in order to use appropriate examples which will allow the audience to understand the perspective and then to decide whether to reject or accept it.
Crowley and Hawhee discuss enthymemes at great length and they believe that enthymemes (which can be a bumper sticker, billboard, poster, etc.) are only as powerful as its audience acceptance of the message. They write that “Whether this argument is convincing depends upon whether audiences think the examples are actually particulars that fit into the class asserted in the conclusion” (167). Basically, this statement supports the idea that a person who will write or speak an enthymeme must know his or her audience if he or she wishes for the successful spread of his or her idea. Enthymemes are useful for political purposes because “they [enthymemes] are based in community beliefs” (170). Thus, if you understand that your audience is politically bent this way versus that way, you will use certain known enthymemes as examples to establish your points. Crowley and Hawhee support this idea when they state “Rather, an enthymeme may contain as many premises as are needed to secure the audience’s belief in the conclusion” (171). Hence, enthymemes are a perfect example of how much power an audience has over a rhetor’s use of proof in his or her speech. In the case of enthymemes, the audience will dictate not only which ones are utilized (political, etc.) but the audience will also influence the frequency and acceptance of these types of proofs.
The next example of logical proof, rhetorical instances, also manifest the power of the audience over the rhetor. Both authors argue that “an example adduces ‘some past action real or assumed which may serve to persuade the audience of the truth of the point which we are trying to make’” (171). A debater that uses rhetorical instances is going to persuade an audience to remember the event that they all shared and then he or she will connect with the audience’s emotions surrounding this event in order to either get something passed or not passed. The best example, I can come up with is that of the closing remarks that lawyers make to a jury. In these last moments, before the jury deliberates and votes on either a guilty or not guilty verdict, each lawyer recalls the event and tries to connect with the audience’s emotions so that his or her point is remembered. Crowley and Hawhee write that “A rhetor who uses examples is reasoning only from part to part, or like to like, or like to unlike” and that these “examples are persuasive because they are specific… they call up vivid memories of something the audience has experienced” (172). Once again, the audience determines whether rhetorical (or even historical or fictional examples for that matter) are utilized and if so, which one and what emotions will the rhetor try to associate with.
Analogies, similar and contrary examples, maxims and signs also are deeply rooted items within an audience. For example, if an orator wants to apply a maxim to his or her point, he or she must make sure he or she has a correct and coherent understand of the community’s relationship to a particular maxim. After all, Crowley and Hawhee state that “Maxims are wise sayings or proverbs that are generally accepted by the rhetorician’s community” (182). Hence, the logical proof examples that one utilizes must coincide with the audience’s beliefs if a debater wishes to have his or her point heard, acknowledged and hopefully, accepted.
First off, I apologize for the length of this blog. I really enjoyed this chapter and am excited for this week’s discussion. This chapter had so much to say about building up the body of an argument and how one goes about doing it. As I said in the introduction, I was amazed at how much power a particular audience has over the content (examples) of a speech, debate, etc. I really cannot wait for Thursday night’s class.
No comments:
Post a Comment