Paradigms, Anomalies, Activist Groups...Oh my!
Critiquing the assumptions of the rational world paradigm inspired a feverish dialogue that addressed the evolution of politics and activist groups. Basically, the rational world paradigm assumes that humans are guided by sound reasoning and logic. This paradigm privileges logos and simultaneously marginalizes the use of ethos in argumentation.
A recent COM 638 (Small Group Communication & Theory) facilitation addressed the need to validate other paradigms in the public sphere. Several activist groups, such as ACT UP and ABORTION-NO, have essentially persuaded others through “nontraditional” means. Instead of using logic and Toulmin’s model of argumentation, these groups use emotionally charged chants, visual rhetoric, and strategies of vilification.
Although I do not necessarily agree with the views or strategies utilized by these particular activist groups, they symbolically exist as significant anomalies for the rational world paradigm. How can activist groups persuade others without sound reasoning and evidence? Emotions, pictures, and fallacious arguments can be just as persuasive as well-articulated arguments. Clearly, other paradigms of thought need to be considered.
What if we adopted other approaches to argumentation and persuasion? Academia tends to dramatize the relationship between paired constructs. Sadly, rhetoricians have traditionally framed emotions and logic as dualistic. However, I contend that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive—especially in the arena of persuasion. Why can’t activist groups strategically capitalize on BOTH (pathos and logos) strategies of persuasion?
Despite their ability to push us beyond the rational world paradigm, I have several concerns with the practice of several radical activist groups. To begin, all activist organizations need to engage in ETHICAL communication. Invoking emotions and vilification as means to accomplish a persuasive objective flirts with the shadows of unethical behavior. For example, check out http://www.abortionno.org/. (Warning—this site contains extremely graphic pictures.) I do not approve of their propaganda. Second, I am concerned with the complete abandonment of rational thought. Anger and fear can be powerful motivational appeals, but I still believe that they need to be grounded in sound reasoning and credible evidence. As mentioned previously, ethos and logos can coexist augment the persuasiveness of a given message.
In sum, I urge activist groups to consider new strategies of persuasion. We do not have to be confined by the boundaries of the rational world paradigm. However, I must emphasize the need to consistently –- and relentlessly—use ethical communication while advocating for change.
A recent COM 638 (Small Group Communication & Theory) facilitation addressed the need to validate other paradigms in the public sphere. Several activist groups, such as ACT UP and ABORTION-NO, have essentially persuaded others through “nontraditional” means. Instead of using logic and Toulmin’s model of argumentation, these groups use emotionally charged chants, visual rhetoric, and strategies of vilification.
Although I do not necessarily agree with the views or strategies utilized by these particular activist groups, they symbolically exist as significant anomalies for the rational world paradigm. How can activist groups persuade others without sound reasoning and evidence? Emotions, pictures, and fallacious arguments can be just as persuasive as well-articulated arguments. Clearly, other paradigms of thought need to be considered.
What if we adopted other approaches to argumentation and persuasion? Academia tends to dramatize the relationship between paired constructs. Sadly, rhetoricians have traditionally framed emotions and logic as dualistic. However, I contend that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive—especially in the arena of persuasion. Why can’t activist groups strategically capitalize on BOTH (pathos and logos) strategies of persuasion?
Despite their ability to push us beyond the rational world paradigm, I have several concerns with the practice of several radical activist groups. To begin, all activist organizations need to engage in ETHICAL communication. Invoking emotions and vilification as means to accomplish a persuasive objective flirts with the shadows of unethical behavior. For example, check out http://www.abortionno.org/. (Warning—this site contains extremely graphic pictures.) I do not approve of their propaganda. Second, I am concerned with the complete abandonment of rational thought. Anger and fear can be powerful motivational appeals, but I still believe that they need to be grounded in sound reasoning and credible evidence. As mentioned previously, ethos and logos can coexist augment the persuasiveness of a given message.
In sum, I urge activist groups to consider new strategies of persuasion. We do not have to be confined by the boundaries of the rational world paradigm. However, I must emphasize the need to consistently –- and relentlessly—use ethical communication while advocating for change.
posted by MDC Youth Rep at 1:40 AM
2 Comments:
Hey Lisa!
It's ONLY because I'm taking a course right now that I have learned this, but, a lot of rhetoricians do not consider argument only from the rational world paradigm, regardless of what Cherney may have you believe.
There are a ton of articles that have been written regarding narrative and how arguments are made not just from a Toulmin perspective but also from an ethos perspective (not in those words, but that's the basic breakdown). This ties in to the dramatistic perspective that you had mentioned as well.
As for your conclusion--I agree!
--Russ
Hi Russ!!!
Thanks for the post! :) It's good to hear from you. I completely agree with you-- today, rhetoricians embrace many different approaches to argumentation (especially if you consider the post-modern era--- eek!)
Perhaps the rational paradigm was privileged in the classical era (of "Old School Philosophers" like Aristotle, Plato, etc)...Surely these historic roots continue to influence the way we see rhetoric today-- but you are right in stating that there are many other ways to understand argumentation.
Thanks for the post! You are awesome. :)
Hope things are going well at KU! Talk to you soon!
:) Lis
Post a Comment
<< Home