Neo-Aristotelian Criticism

"Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice", the Fourth Edition book by Sonja K. Foss covers the topic of Neo-Aristotelian Criticism in Chapter Three. With Neo-Aristotelian Criticism being the first method of rhetorical criticism, it was unclear how this approach differed from that of literary criticism. It was necessary to differentiate between the two. Many of those intellects who specialized in communication hoped to progress the field, developing a unique identity so as to offer a specific approach to analyzing and criticizing culture.

Neo-Aristotelian Criticism looks to analyze certain aspects of the artifact in question that focus on the speaker. These aspects that a critic must look at include "the speaker's personality, the public character of the speaker or the public's perception of the speaker, the audience, the major ideas presented in the speech, the motives to which the speaker appealed, the nature of the speaker's proofs, the speaker's judgment of human nature in the audience, the arrangement of the speech, the speaker's method of speech preparation, the manner of delivery, and the effect of the discourse on the immediate audience and its long-term effects" (22). While looking at these elements the critic performing the rhetorical criticism must consider the speaker's means of communicated with the specified audience.

As reported by Foss, there are three basic steps in using the Neo-Aristotelian method to analyze an artifact which include reconstructing the context, applying the canon, and assessing the effects. In reconstructing the context it is important to survey the background of the speaker, analyze the occasion of the event which the artifact was presented, and by examining the audience who is being subjected to the rhetorical artifact. Next a critic would apply the canon of classical rhetoric. The characteristics of the canon are invention, organization, style, delivery, and memory. Lastly, in assessing the effects of the artifact, the critic interprets whether the intended goal of the rhetorical device was achieved and how effective it was in achieving that goal.

Narrative criticism

Narrative criticism focuses on the stories a speaker or a writer tells to understand how they help us make meaning out of our daily human experiences. Narrative theory is a means by which we can comprehend how we impose order on our experiences and actions by giving them a narrative form. According to Walter Fisher,[1] narratives are fundamental to communication and provide structure for human experience and influence people to share common explanations and understandings (58). Fisher defines narratives as “symbolic actions-words and/or deeds that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create, or interpret them.” Study of narrative criticism, therefore, includes form (fiction or non-fiction, prose or poetry), genre (myth, history, legend, etc.), structure (including plot, theme, irony, foreshadowing, etc.) characterization, and communicator’s perspective.

Characteristics of a narrative were defined as early as Aristotle in his Poetics (Aristotle) [2] under plot. He called plot as the “first principle” or the “soul of a tragedy.” According to him, plot is the arrangement of incidents that imitate the action with a beginning, middle, and end . Plot includes introduction of characters, rising action and introduction of complication, development of complication, climax (narrative), and final resolution. As described by White (1981)[3] and Martin (1986),[4] plot involves a structure of action. However, not all narratives contain a plot. Fragmentation occurs as the traditional plot disappears, narratives become less linear, and the burden of meaning making gets shifted from the narrator to the reader.[5]

Narratives can be found in a range of practices such as novels, short stories, plays, films, histories, documentaries, gossip, biographies, television and scholarly books.[6] All of these artifacts make excellent objects for narrative criticism. When performing a narrative criticism, critics should focus on the features of the narrative that allow them to say something meaningful about the artifact. Sample questions from Sonja K. Foss [7] offer a guide for analysis:

Setting – How does the setting relate to the plot and characters? How is the particular setting created? Is the setting textually prominent – highly developed and detailed – or negligible? Characters (Persona)– Are some of the characters non-human or inanimate phenomena, described as thinking and speaking beings? In what actions do the characters engage? Are the characters round (possess a variety of traits, some of them conflicting or contradictory) or flat (one or a few dominant traits making the character predictable)? Narrator – Is the narrative presented directly to the audience, or is it mediated by a narrator? What makes the narrator intrusive or not? What kind of person is the narrator (examine his or her ethos)? Events – What are the major and minor events? How are the events presented? Are the events active (expressing action) or stative (expressing a state or condition)? Temporal relations – Do events occur in a brief period of time or over many years? What is the relationship between the natural order of the events as they occurred and the order of their presentation in the telling of a narrative? Is the story in past or present tense? Causal relations – What cause-and-effect relationships are established in the narrative? Are events caused largely by human action, accident, or forces of nature? In how much detail are the causes and effects described? Audience – Is the audience a participant in the events recounted? What can be inferred about the audience’s attitudes, knowledge, or situation from the narrative? What seems to be the narrator’s evaluation of the audience’s knowledge, personality, and abilities? Theme – What is the major theme (general idea illustrated by the narrative) of the narrative? How is the theme articulated? How obvious and clear is the theme? Limitations: Traditional narrative criticism focuses primarily on the narrative and does not take the socioeconomic and political background into consideration; however, it is not opposed to New-Historicism theory. In addition, it does not take the narrator's motivations into consideration as it focuses on the narrative to generate the analysis.

2

Also, as the critic looks at the overall unity of the narrative, the theory is not conducive to deconstruction techniques (19-20).[8]

Narrative Method References

^ Fisher, Walter. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 1987. ^ Aristotle. Poetics. Part VI-VII ^ White, H. “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Culture.” On Narrative. Ed. W.J.T. Mitchell. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981. ^ Martin, W. Recent Theories of Narrative. Ithaca, NY: Cornell U P, 1986. ^ Michael Calvin McGee and John S. Nelson and Michael Sizemore (1990) in “Narrative Reason in Public Argument.” ^ James Jasinski: Sourcebook on Rhetoric. California: Sage Publications, 2001. ^ Sonja K. Foss. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Illinois: Waveland Press, 2004. ^ Yee, Gale. Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis, Fortress, 2007.

Metaphoric criticism

Metaphoric criticism is one school of rhetorical analysis used in English and speech communication studies. Scholars employing metaphoric criticism analyze texts by locating metaphors within texts and evaluating those metaphors in an effort to better understand ways in which authors appeal to their audiences.Contents

1 Origins 2 Application 3 Conducting Metaphoric Criticism 4 References 5 Further reading

Origins

The term "metaphor" can be traced to the trope described by Aristotle in both his Rhetoric and Poetics as a comparison of two dissimilar objects or concepts in an effort to relate one to the other. James DeMille, in The Elements of Rhetoric, defines metaphor as "an implied comparison between two things of unlike nature, for example, 'The colorful display was a magnet for anybody in the room.'"[1] Using DeMille’s example, a critic studying metaphor would explore how normally "display" and "magnet" are not considered synonyms. However, in using "magnet" as a metaphor, the above sentence implies that the "display" possess properties of a magnet and draws objects -- or, in this case, people -- in the room toward it.

3

In a broader sense, metaphoric criticism can illuminate the world in which we live by analyzing the language -- and, in particular, the metaphors -- that surround us. The notion that metaphors demonstrate worldviews originates in the work of Kenneth Burke and has been taken up further in the cognitive sciences, particularly by George Lakoff.[edit] Application

Metaphoric criticism focuses on analysis of texts that use metaphors effectively or ineffectively as part of their argument structure. For example, in an article entitled "Five Years After 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor," George Lakoff and Evan Frisch analyze how President Bush’s adoption of a "war" metaphor in order to discuss his approach to dealing with terrorism as opposed to a "crime" metaphor provides a barrier from critics for him to move forward with the War in Iraq. Lakoff illustrates the power of the "war" metaphor: "The war metaphor defined war as the only way to defend the nation. From within the war metaphor, being against war as a response was to be unpatriotic, to be against defending the nation. The war metaphor put progressives on the defensive."[2]" Rhetorical critics would not only make these observations in their own criticism, but would also relate to the effect on the audience, and how the metaphor either enhances or challenges the audience’s worldview.

Critics examining metaphor have in recent years also started to examine metaphor in visual and electronic media. For example, metaphors can be found in rhetorical presidential television ads. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan’s campaign sponsored a commercial showing a grizzly bear as posing a potentially large threat to the United States. The USSR is never named in that ad, however the assumption of the campaign was that Americans would clearly recognize the "enemy" that the bear represents.

Conducting Metaphoric Criticism

In Rhetorical Criticism[3], Sonja K. Foss outlines a four-step procedure for applying metaphoric criticism to texts:

1. First, the critic reads or views the entire artifact with specific attention to its context.

2. Second, to the critic isolates the metaphor(s) within the text, both obvious and more subtle substitutions of meaning. Here Foss invokes Max Black’s interaction theory of "tenor" (the principal subject or focus) and "vehicle" (secondary subject or frame for the metaphor), a method to analyze ways in which the related dissimilar objects actually share similar characteristics.

3. Third, the critic sorts the metaphors and look for patterns of use within the text. The more comprehensive the text, the longer this step will take.

4. The critic analyzes the metaphor(s) or groups of metaphors in the artifact to reveal how their structure may affect the intended audience. Foss writes, "Here, the critic suggests what effects the use of the various metaphors may have on the audience and how the metaphors function to argue for a particular attitude toward the ideas presented."

4

Metaphoric Method References

^ DeMille, James. (1878). "The Elements of Rhetoric." New York: Harper and Brothers. ^ Lakoff, George, and Evan Frisch. (2006) "Five Years After 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor. ^ Foss, Sonja K. (1995). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 2nd edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Cluster criticism

Cluster criticism is a method of rhetorical criticism in which a critic examines the structural relations and associative meanings between certain main ideas, concepts, or subjects present in a text.Contents

1 Method 1.1 Identify Key Terms 1.2 Create Clusters from Associated Elements 1.3 Examine and Compare Clusters 2 Example 3 References

Method

There are three steps in performing a cluster criticism: identifying key terms, creating clusters from associated elements, and examining and comparing clusters.[1]

Identify Key Terms

First, key terms are identified. These are generally the ideas, subjects, topics, or arguments that work discusses. They usually (but not always) occur more often than any other element in the work; they can also be identified in a work's introduction.

Create Clusters from Associated Elements

Next, the critic identifies surrounding elements in the text that refer to or are associated with each of the key terms. Each collection of associated elements which refer to the same key term is called a cluster.

Examine and Compare Clusters

In the final step of the criticism, the critic examines how each specific cluster represents its referring key term. This process typically includes directly contrasting one cluster with

5

another. By doing this, a critic can determine how a text privileges one key term over others.

This stage of cluster criticism can incorporate other methods in rhetorical criticism. For example, if different types of metaphors are found in different clusters, a critic can perform multiple metaphoric criticisms in order to show how each key term characterizes a particular position or entity.

Example

The following is an excerpt from a speech titled "Americanism" given by Warren G. Harding in 1920 regarding aid to European nations devastated by World War I. Terms bolded are those a critic might associate with the key term "Old World stabilization" and terms underlined are those a critic might associate with the key term "stabilize America."

It's time to idealize, but it's very practical to make sure our own house is in perfect order before we attempt the miracle of Old World stabilization. Call it the selfishness of nationality if you will. I think it's an inspiration to patriotic devotion to safeguard America first, to stabilize America first, to prosper America first, to think of America first, to exalt America first, to live for and revere America first. Let the internationalist dream and the Bolshevist destroy.

In this example, the critic would examine the cluster of words and phrases around the key term "Old world stabilization" in order to find certain patterns. Terms like idealize, miracle, dream, and attempt depict reconstruction through aid as an unproven strategy; internationalist and Bolshevist characterize supporters of aid as foreign and Communist; and the ending word 'destroy' implies a disastrous consequence for the proposal. In all, a critic can assume that these clusters work together to present aid for European reconstruction as an irresponsible and un-American plan.

In stark contrast, the terms in the cluster around "stabilize America" construct a rejection of the proposal as the only responsible and American choice. Terms like make sure, think, practical, order, safeguard, live, and prosper construct a refusal of European reconstruction as safe and sensible. The words inspiration, exalt, and revere function with the phrases "patriotic devotion" and "selfishness of nationality" to characterize a refusal of aid as a positive, patriotic act. Finally, the repeated phrase "America first" dichotomizes the issue into a choice between placing America or Europe first, with no middle ground.

The conclusion of this cluster criticism would therefore be that Harding advances his argument by constructing European aid as an irresponsible and un-American policy and a rejection of aid as a responsible, pro-American policy as well as framing the issue as an irreconcilable choice between the interests of America and Europe.

Cluster Method References

6

^ Foss, Sonja K. (1996). "Cluster Criticism". Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Waveland Pr Inc. pp. 367–70.

Genre criticism

Genre criticism is a method within rhetorical criticism for analysing speeches and writing according to the symbolic artifacts they contain. In rhetoric, the theory of genre provides a means to classify and compare artifacts of communication and to assess their effectiveness and/or contribution to a community. By grouping artifacts with others of similar formal features or rhetorical exigencies, rhetorical critics can shed light on how authors use or flout conventions in order to meet their needs. Genre criticism has thus become one of the main methodologies within rhetorical criticism.

While genres have been used to classify speeches and works of literature since the time of Aristotle, genre did not emerge as a critical tool to describe and analyze texts until the 20th century. Since then, genre criticism has taken three turns. The first turn, represented by Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, among others, focused on the formal features of communication. The second turn, represented by Carolyn Miller, among others, focused on recurring socio-cultural circumstances. In the latest turn, critics have begun applying formalist and socio-cultural concepts to new media artifacts that tend to resist classification in traditional genre categories.Contents

1 Emphasis on formal features in speech genres 2 Rhetorical approaches to genre 3 Socio-cultural approach to genre studies 4 Genres studies in new media 5 See also 6 References 7 Sources

Emphasis on formal features in speech genres

The first group of rhetorical critics, following the example of theorists like M. M. Bakhtin, used formal features to analyze texts. For these critics, language is formed through a series of utterances that reflect specific conditions and goals of certain linguistic aspects. These aspects include thematic content, style, and compositional structure which form speech genres. Speech genres are diverse because of the various possibilities of human activity. In "The Problem of Speech Genres" (1986), Mikhail Bakhtin draws attention to the very significant difference between primary (simple) and secondary (complex) speech genres.[1] According to Bahktin, primary speech genres form secondary speech genres and examples of secondary speech genres include novels, dramas, all kinds of scientific research, and major genres of commentary. Since these secondary genres involve complex and comparatively highly developed and organized cultural communication that is artistic and scientific, they absorb and digest various

7

primary genres that have taken form in mediated speech communion. Bakhtin continues to explain that there are three factors of the whole utterance which include semantic exhaustiveness of the theme, the speaker’s plan or speech will, and the typical compositional and generic forms of finalization.[2] The first factor refers to the way utterances are used within speech which is linked to the second factor of how the speaker determines to use the utterance.The third factor explains that all our utterances have definite and stable typical forms of construction, but that these forms can change when needed. As Bahktin writes, "These genres are so diverse because they differ depending on the situation, social position, and personal interrelations of the participants in the communication".[3]

Rhetorical approaches to genre

The word “genre” is derived from the Latin term genus, to mean “kind”, “class” or "sort".

Aristotle was one of the first scholars to develop a rhetorical approach to genre. He divided the art of rhetoric into three genres: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic.[4] The deliberative genre of rhetoric involves speeches or writing meant to persuade an audience to take action. Deliberative rhetoric thus includes rhetoric that is used for political persuasion, discusses matters of public policy in order to determine what is advantageous or disadvantageous, and is usually concerned with the future. Rhetoric of the forensic genre questions guilt or innocence, is concerned with legalities, and concentrates on events that occurred in the past. The epideictic genre of rhetoric encompasses all rhetoric used for ceremonial and commemorative purposes. Epideictic rhetoric praises and blames, acknowledging that which is noble or shameful, honorable or dishonorable.

The rhetorical situation is a concept important for understanding rhetorical approaches to genre and the creation of new genres.[5] Campaign speeches are an example of how rhetorical situations recur, producing sedimented genres. As a result of the institutions that execute the U.S. Constitution, every four years at the time of presidential elections, candidates deliver campaign speeches. Campaign speeches have become a distinct genre because they respond to highly similar situations that recur because of a structural or institutional basis.

U.S. rhetorician Karlyn Kohrs Campbell refers to genre as a “constellation of elements."[6] She says, “A genre is a group of acts unified by a constellation of forms that recurs in each of its members.” Genres are formed when examined constituents are similar. The metaphors of genres as “constellations” serves to explain how genres, like constellations of stars, are constructed of individual members, but are under the influence of each other and outside elements. As a result they move together and remain in a similar relation to each other despite their ever-changing positions.[6] According to Campbell and colleague Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “when a generic claim is made, the critical situation alters significantly because the critic is now arguing that a group of discourses has a synthetic core in which certain significant rhetorical elements, e.g., a system of belief, lines of argument, stylistic choices, and the perception of the situation, are fused into an indivisible whole".[6]

8

Many contemporary scholars refer to the fusion of traits from different genres in speeches and texts as a "generic hybrid".[7] These generic hybrids can be formed from a blend of the three rhetorical genres.[8] This concept can be explained through an example of a generic hybrid of deliberative and epideictic elements, in which a newly-elected President delivers an inaugural address. The President is speaking at a formal ceremony recognizing the current state of the nation (characteristic of the epideictic genre), while simultaneously announcing his policy plans for the upcoming four years.

U.S. rhetorician Carolyn R. Miller is the author of the article "Genre as Social Action" (1984). She argues, “Rhetorical criticism has not provided firm guidance on what constitutes a genre” and a “rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish.” [9] Miller also argues that new media genres may develop and formalize more quickly than traditional, written genres. She is among other rhetoricians who have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of traditional genre theory for new media communication. They argue that because genre theory originally was developed for describing written texts, the theory should be modified to account for nonlinguistic communication. Miller and colleague Dawn Shepherd illustrate an example of applying socio-cultural theories to genre studies in "Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog". They explain how the weblog may be establishing a new genre because of its integration of current social and cultural trends.[10]

Socio-cultural approach to genre studies

In the 1980s, scholarship in genre theory and criticism has turned towards a socio-cultural approach to the study of genre by actively interrogating the rhetorical situation of a given communication artifact in light of its particular generic form. In this mode of inquiry, the rhetorical artifact is examined as a social response to a set of recurrent rhetorical exigencies rather than a collection of formal, generic elements. In the rhetorical tradition of genre criticism, Carolyn R. Miller's work on the socio-cultural approach to genre theory has been influential. Again in her 1984 book, Miller argues that “rhetorical criticism has not provided firm guidance on what constitutes a genre” and that a “rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish”.[9] Later, when Miller and Shepherd engaged the socio-cultural approach to genre criticism in “Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog” (2004), they exposed some of the difficulties of applying genre theory to new media. In their analysis, Miller and Shepherd examine the extent to which the weblog might constitute a genre in light of its interaction with current social and cultural trends.

Genres studies in new media

Recently scholars and researchers in rhetoric, linguistics, and information sciences have begun to explore the relationships between new media and socio-contextual genre theories (like those of Carolyn Miller, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Charles Bazerman). These

9

researchers have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of traditional genre theory for new media communication. Some scholars have argued that since genre theory was originally developed to describe written texts, the theory needs to be modified to account for nonlinguistic communication. Linguist and semiotician Gunter Kress suggested that much of the vocabulary of generic analysis is ill-equipped to address non-written communication, arguing that “there are no genre terms for describing what [a] drawing is or does…” [11] Similarly, rhetoricians Miller and Shepherd have argued that traditional written genre theory does not appropriately address the visual features of a genre’s format.[10]

Rhetoricians and information scientists have also pointed out that new media genres may develop and formalize more quickly than traditional written genres. The authors of the article "Genres and the web" argue that the personal home page is functioning as a new and discrete genre, and they explore the entirely digital nature of home pages, suggesting that home pages “have no obvious paper equivalent”.[12] Additionally recent work in new media genre theory has explored how new communication technologies allows for forms of “genre hybridity.” Spinuzzi, for example, explores what can happen when multiple related genres are remediated into a single new media artifact.[13]

Genre Method References

^ Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). "The Problem of Speech Genres". Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. V. W. McGee. University of Texas Press. p. 62. ^ Bakhtin, Speech genres and other late essays, p.77. ^ Bakhtin, Speech genres and other late essays, p. 79. ^ Hill, F.I (1995). "The Rhetoric of Aristotle". A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric (2nd rev. ed.), Davis, CA. Hermagoras Press. ^ Bitzer, L.F. (1968). "The rhetorical situation". Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 1, pp. 1-14. ^ a b c Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (1978), Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action. The Speech Communication Association. Falls Church, VA. p. 21. ^ Jamieson, K.M.; Campbell, K.K. (1982). "Rhetorical hybrids: "'Fusion of generic elements'". Quarterly Journal of Speech (68), pp. 146-157. ^ Aristotle, Rhetoric, (Trans. W.R. Roberts, 1954), New York: Modern Library. ^ a b Miller, C. R. (1984). "Genre as social action." Quarterly Journal of Speech (70), pp. 151-67. ^ a b Miller, C. R.; Shepherd, D.(2004). "Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog", Into the Blogosphere. Retrieved 10 April 2005. ^ Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T (1996). Multimodal Discourse. London: Routledge. p.110. ^ Miller, Carolyn; Shepherd, Dawn; Crowston, Kevin; Williams, Marie (2000). "Genres and the web: Is the personal home page the first uniquely digital genre?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), pp. 202-205.

10

^ Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dramatistic pentad

The dramatistic pentad forms the core structure of dramatism, a method for examining motivations that the renowned literary critic Kenneth Burke developed. Dramatism recommends the use of a metalinguistic approach to stories about human action that investigates the roles and uses of five rhetorical elements common to all narratives, each of which is related to a question. These five rhetorical elements form the "dramatistic pentad." Burke argues that an evaluation of the relative emphasis that is given to each of the five elements by a human drama enables a determination of the motive for the behaviour of its characters. A character's stress on one element over the others suggests their world view.

Burke introduced the pentad in his 1945 book "A Grammar of Motives". Burke based his pentad on the scholastic hexameter which defines "questions to be answered in the treatment of a topic: Who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when".[1] Burke created the pentad by combining several of the categories in the scholastic hexameter. The result was a pentad that has the five categories of: act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. Burke states, "The 'who' is obviously covered by agent. Scene covers the 'where' and the 'when'. The 'why' is purpose. 'How' and 'by what means' fall under agency. All that is left to take care of is act in our terms and 'what' in the scholastic formula".[2]

The pentad also closely follows the journalistic 'Five Ws': who, what, when, where, why. 'Who' maps to agent. 'What' maps to action. 'When' and 'Where' map to scene. 'Why' maps to purpose. There is no direct mapping from the Five Ws to the pentads category of agency but Geoff Hart states "Some authorities add a sixth question, “how”, to this list, but “how to” information generally fits under what, where, or when, depending on the nature of the information." [3]

Contents

1 Rhetorical elements of the dramatistic pentad 1.1 Act 1.2 Scene 1.3 Agent 1.4 Agency 1.5 Purpose 2 Notes

Rhetorical elements of the dramatistic pentad

The dramatistic pentad comprises the five rhetorical elements:

Act

11

Act, which is associated with dramatic action verbs and answers the question "what?", is related to the world view of realism; What happened? What is the action? What is going on? What action; what thoughts?

Scene

Scene, which is associated with the setting of an act and answers the questions "when?" and "where?", is related to the world view of materialism and minimal or non-existent free will.

Agent

Agent, which answers the question "whom?", reflects the world view of philosophical idealism.

Agency

Agency (means), which is associated with the person or the organization that committed the deed and answers the question "how?", implies a pragmatic point of view.

Purpose

Purpose, which is associated with meaning and answers the question "why?", indicates that the character seeks unity through identification with an ultimate meaning of life. Reflects the world view of mysticism.

Pentad Method Notes

^ Burke, Kenneth. "A Grammar of Motives". University of California Press, 1969, p. 228 ^ Burke, Kenneth. "A Grammar of Motives". University of California Press, 1969, p. 228. ^ "The Five Ws of Online Help". by Geoff Hart, TECHWR-L. Retrieved April 30, 2012.

Ideological Criticism

Synopsis Ideological criticism explores the relationship between rhetoric and power, and toward that end analyzes the use of “ideographs” in an artifact or body of work to draw conclusions about the speaker and his or her world view. Ideographs provide a naming function within society, to reflect, select or deflect a version of reality through symbols. Ideographs contain persuasive power to the extent that a community believes the labels represent valid interpretations of the world. Furthermore, “ideographs and the

12

ideological commitments they are assumed to represent have undeniably rhetorical natures and can thus change over time and/or among different groups of people, even within the same nation.”[1] Examples of ideographs in the American character and political mythology include property, religion, privacy, freedom of speech, rule of law, and liberty – terms “more pregnant than propositions ever could be.” Such terms are the basic structural elements, the building blocks, of ideology. Ideographs contain within them and communicate synoptically and subliminally a line of argument within political consciousness. The analyst’s task, then, is to determine associations between ideals and national/cultural identities across time; how the ideals have been promoted, appropriated and sublimated; and by whom.

Ideographs expose the interiority of the ideology rhetorically expressed, providing a window on how the orator constructs his or her world and imagines his or her audience. In American civic and political life, we maintain core beliefs associated with terms such as <liberty>, <freedom>, <equality> and <security>. When invoked by opinion and political leaders in the public arena, these words invite, if not demand, a socially expected and accepted response. In short, ideographs warrant public commitments and behavior. Ideographs have a cumulative meaning gained and textured over time and stored in cultural memory. Beyond our understanding of what an ideograph has meant to previous generations in their particular circumstances, we layer additional meanings derived from the ideograph’s use in current context, and in association with other motivating terms in vogue. As a force of expression and resonance, ideographs exhibit a synoptic quality. The ideograph most prominently voiced holds momentary sway over a more complex set of beliefs. Ideographs open a keyhole into a much larger world view, and accordingly should be treated as a translational device. Seminal Work McGee, Michael Calvin. “The ‘Ideograph’: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, no. 1 (February 1980): 1-16. Application Ideographs tend to cluster together to create a mutually reinforcing and consonant effect, with one ideograph dominating the others. Ideographic clusters reorganize themselves to accommodate specific circumstances while maintaining consonance and unity. The specific analysis of ideographs and ideographic clusters could be applied to a body of rhetoric emanating from a terrorist group and its existing and potential supporters; cluster reorganization and replacement of dominant terms could be clues of a change in motive and objectives, and transference of values across groups. The critic working within the ideological domain could draw out McGee’s thesis on the construction of “the people” for clues about existing and changing leadership roles within a terrorist group. More affirmatively, the study of ideographs and ideographic clusters could offer an effective

13

working vocabulary for national leaders to draw upon, in the event of a second catastrophic attack.

To better appreciate the connection between ideographic analysis and leadership analysis, you're invited to read through an illustrative case study excerpted from "<Justice> as a Binding Term in the Domestic and Foreign Policy Leadership of President Woodrow Wilson," a paper that authored for a historical-critical methods course at the University of Maryland under the direction of Dr. James F. Klumpp. The selection of Woodrow Wilson as an orator was spurred by the renaissance of Wilsonian scholarship that coincided with the course. Although the subject is one of convenience, the case study elucidates the rhetorical force of <justice> in translating a political leader's world view into national action. Applied to a contemporary rather than historical personage for whom the analyst has sufficient biographical and discursive artifacts, the methodology can aid in forecasting policy choices.

[1] Beasley, “Rhetoric of Ideological Consensus,” 173.

Rhetorical SituationRhetoric is situational. Commonly understood today, this was a bold claim when Lloyd Bitzer published The Rhetorical Situation in 1968. It is an important antecedent to contemporary criticism, in that it acknowledges and seeks to explain the process through which discourse comes about: … a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world; it performs some task. In short, rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action. The rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes mediator of change.[1] And recognizes the interactive dynamic of rhetoric, in the interplay of speaker, audience and environment: Rhetorical situation may be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence … Any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be.[2] [1]Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” 60.[2] Ibid., 61-62.

Fantasy Theme Analysis

14

Synopsis Fantasy theme analysis offers one process through which individuals with no common history form a sustainable, unified community. Fantasy theme analysis asserts that small group stories or myths “chain out” through public speeches, mass media and, more recently, the Internet, to form rhetorical visions that resonate and gain adherents from among ever-expanding circles of society: A rhetorical vision is a unified putting-together of the various scripts that give the participants a broader view of things. Rhetorical visions are often integrated by the sharing of a dramatizing message that contains a master analogy, which pulls the various elements together into a more or less elegant and meaningful whole. A rhetorical vision is usually indexed by a key word, slogan or label … Recent labels for rhetorical visions in the United States have included “the New Deal,” “the New Frontier,” “Black Power,” “the Cold War,” “the New Left,” the “Silent Majority” and “the Moral Majority.”[1] Rhetorical visions can be categorized as pragmatic (shared consciousness of people who seek practical and utilitarian goals), social (shared consciousness celebrating interpersonal relationships and community); or righteous (a social consciousness dedicated to some overarching cause or position). A rhetorical vision has staying power so long as the fantasy themes contain explanatory power, and to the extent that the symbolic cues continue to invite common interpretation. Rhetorical visions can be sustained over time through the use of fantasy types – a stock scenario used to explain new events in a well-known dramatic form. Members of a group use archetypal fantasy as a way to fit the unfolding of experience comfortably into their shared consciousness. If a rhetorical vision is sustained over a long period of time, it achieves the level of a saga – the detailed account of the achievements in the life of a person, group, community, organization or nation. Seminal Work Bormann, Ernest. “Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 58, no. 4 (December 1972): 396-407 Application Among the more promising applications for fantasy theme analysis is the area of study broadly termed leadership analysis. Because rhetorical visions contain the motives of individuals participating in them, analysis of visions can be used to forecast future behavior of a group proven prone to the appeals of a known charismatic leader. Rhetorical visions can be analyzed across a time horizon for their persuasive arc – the ascendance of one vision to supplant another, its denouement, and eventual replacement by yet another vision. Such dialectic could signal group fractioning and in-group struggles for leadership.

15

Fantasy theme analysis is also well suited to the study of belief systems in both religious and secular writing and speech. Common themes – pleas for fairness and justice, and the natural order and resurrection of the people – offer the analyst the pointers to the joining of rhetorical communities in a saga; rhetorical community could lead to more tangible forms of alliance among terrorist, radical religious and hate groups. [1] Bormann, “Symbolic Convergence Theory,” 133.

16