by Jonathan Carter
Overview
Well, NFL fans, it’s time for the last brief of this competitive season. For those of you still on the g,o here is another brief dedicated to adding one more brilliant point when you have run out of ideas. Rather than focusing on a global issue that affects anything this week, we are going to examine a secondary way to analyze all issues. While we tend to focus on the direct impacts of things–what the leaders did, what the laws mandate, how the battles are being fought, etc.– we can also analyze the messages that are sent along with those actions. For every mandate a law has, it also sends a message that effects people that may have no tangible relationship with the law. Thus, when you are in a pinch you can always look at the rhetorical element of the question and add a brilliant extra point. This brief will teach you how to pull off this particular rhetorical flourish.
Key Terms and Figures
Rhetoric: When we are talking about rhetoric, we aren’t talking about the common usage – blowing hot air or “empty rhetoric” – but rather focusing on the way that communicated messages change the way that people think about the world or how they persuade them to action. However, the rhetoric is more than words, as policies, actions or simple behaviors may all change the way that people perceive a person or issue. For example: when analyzing a question about Obama’s fiscal policies, you can examine not only effect the policies will have on voters but also the message voters gain about Obama just by the fact that he proposed the policies – i.e. that he is a class warrior or an official who really cares about the common person.
Framing Theory: Beyond examining the simple message sent by a speech, action, policy, etc., you can also evaluate the way that a politician and/or the media frames an issue. What I mean by frames is how they change the way that an issue is talked about in the media. The battle over the way an issue is framed can vastly change the way that the public perceives an issue. For example: a policy that is framed as essential for national security – let’s say wire tapping — is going to have a much more positive evaluation than if that same policy is discussed mainly in terms of civil liberties. It is the words around the central issue (that frame it) that change this policy. For further reading look into the works of Robert Entman and Erving Goffman.
Strategies of Apologia: Another strong rhetorical element seen in many questions is how to deal with a scandal. Bill Benoit argues that apology is “a recurring type of discourse designed to restore face, image, or reputation after alleged or suspected wrong-doing” He argues there are five basic responses to repair image: denial, evade direct responsibility , reduce offensiveness, take corrective action or to just apologize. Each of these will have a different result on both the public reaction, as they each include different degrees of culpability moving from none (denial) to total (apologize) to also trying to frame how much the public should care – saying I will fix it will change public opinion in very different ways then saying “it wasn’t that big of a deal.” By understanding how people or organizations engage in image restoration, you can gain a better understanding of their long term goals and how concerned they are about public opinion. By evaluating these messages you can have an extra point when evaluating a PR crisis.
Perception and Its Relationship to Rhetoric: Often when examining questions, it becomes obvious that a change would be beneficial to the majority of the people, but they oppose it anyway. The cause of this is that the perceived results differ from reality. Whenever there is a gap between perception and reality, there is a rhetorical action to be evaluated. Depending on the question you can ether have a point that examines what rhetorical actions created the gap, or you can analyze how the actor in the question can craft a rhetorical solution to close the gap between perception and reality.
Past Versus Future Rhetorical Value: You have rhetorical options in all types of questions. Past impact questions: when questions are asking about the impact of a policy or election or momentous event, you should usually look at the rhetorical impact. That is to say look at the messages sent surrounding the question at hand, and if they alone change public opinion or action. However on how can or what should questions: you can always talk about how reframing an issue or image restoration will help, or what messages will appease the public that needs a behavioral change. Questions that just ask for an evaluation of the current state of things also have a rhetorical element. In these questions you can focus on how the current frames change public opinion or the major gaps between perception and reality and how they are guiding events.
How to Apply to Different Types of Questions
Politics: When you break it down, political questions always have at the minimum an underlying question of rhetoric and are often entirely rhetorical. Whenever a question comes down to voter behavior or public opinion, a large part of your speech should focus on what the voters want to hear and what messages will appease them. After all, electoral behavior is less about what the politicians actually have or will do, and more about what they can convince the public to believe. By evaluating the messages of speeches and platforms, you can gain a much deeper understanding of campaigns. Further, by understanding how the public perceives a law, policy or the messages sent by a politician supporting, a policy will help you understand the full impact of the policy and the public response. These strategies apply not only to local politics, but also international and foreign policy.
Economic: While politics are the most overtly rhetorical, rhetoric also plays a strong role in economics. While you should certainly examine the numbers surrounding questions of economics, issues of investor and consumer confidence are entirely rhetorical – what people believe often counts for more than what is real. Furthermore, even though many argue economics is a hard science, rhetoric and rhetorical beliefs can often override the true economics. Belief in scarcity is enough to create a price hike (even is supply is really quite high) and low confidence in manufacturing will slow growth regardless of actual industrial performance. Therefore, understanding the rhetorical element of public understanding of economic events is just as important in evaluating the impact as the numbers
Social: While the political and economic issues that underlie social issues give plenty of ground for rhetorical analysis, these issues also have their own rhetorical parts. Specifically, since many social issues are decided more on ideology than on economics or impact analysis, what people believe and how to persuade them/reframe the issue is of supreme importance. By reframing stem cells as a pro life issue conservatives get a new political base. Conversely, by framing the social security as a social responsibility liberals can gain support. Thus, it is often more the language used to describe social issues than the issues themselves that matter. So by evaluating the specific framing of a social issue you can often see who is controlling the issue.
Sample Questions
Why is emigration from Cuba not slowing in the face of increasing political liberties?
You can focus on how Cuba has failed to communicate the change to citizens or why the messages of the government isn’t believed by the people.
How can Argentina reign in rising inflation?
Focus on what messages would increase confidence as well as the actual fiscal policies that would help.
Does the pro Israel lobby have too much say in US policy towards Iran?
Beyond evaluating the actual control of the lobby, you can also examine how they have framed Iran as a threat and as different (both of which promote an antagonistic stance).
Will the Californian decision of gay marriage increase pressure for other states to reform?
Beyond the legal precedent, you can also look at the power of a decision by the largest state and if that puts any pressure on other state to take action.
Should high ranking officials be held accountable for the anti terror tactics they approve?
Beyond examining the legality and morality, there is a rhetorical element as far as what will keep the public and the voters happy.