ENGL/COMM/WRDS: The Rhetoric of Fear » January 24th: The Rhetoric of Fear and Fallacies Part 1

January 24th: The Rhetoric of Fear and Fallacies Part 1

Plan for Tonight

Key Terms for Rhetoric

  • Rhetoric and dialectic:
  • “12. but rhetoric is useful, [first] because the true and the just are by nature stronger than their opposites.” (1.1.1, Kennedy p. 35; Part 1, para. 7 Online; Chapter 1-[1355a])
    • Kennedy points out that “Aristotle believed that truth was grounded in nature (physis) and capable of apprehension by reason” (p. 35, note 23).
  • Aristotle defines rhetoric:
    “Let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (1.2.1, Kennedy p. 37; Part 2, para. 1 Online)
  • Three modes of persuasion (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online; Chapter 2)
    • Ethos: “[There is persuasion] through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence; for we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others] on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt.” (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online)
    • Pathos (Aristotle 1.2.5, Kennedy p. 39; Part 2, para. 4 Online; Chapter 2-[1356a]): “[There is persuasion] through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion [pathos] by the speech.”
    • Logos (Aristotle 1.2.6, Kennedy p. 39; Part 2, para. 5 Online; Chapter 2-[1356b]): “Persuasion occurs through the arguments [logoi] when we show the truth or the apparent truth from whatever is persuasive in each case.”

Syllogisms and Enthymemes:

  • “A syllogism is wholly from propositions, and the enthymeme is a syllogism consisting of propositions expressed” (Aristotle 1.3.7, Kennedy p. 50, italics mine; Part 3, para. 5 Online)
    Kennedy notes that proposition may not be expressed but assumed.
    • “I {Aristotle} call a rhetorical syllogism an enthymeme” (1.2.8, Kennedy p. 40; Part 2, para. 5 Online) 3rd sentence down
    • In Aristotle’s case, enthymemes deal in probabilities (1.2.14, Kennedy p. 42; Part 2, para. 9 Online) and are used for persuading as opposed to demonstrating a truth.
    • Consider an enthymeme as such:
      *Major Premise (assumed by audience)
      *Minor Premise (assumed by audience–either the Major Premise or Minor Premise is assumed)
      Therefore, a likely conclusion or a probable conclusion.
  • Modern view of enthymeme
    • The word “expressed” in the above quotation (1.3.7; “expressed” is not in Part 3, para. 5 Online) should be “implied” because, many scholars agree, that an enthymeme is a syllogism with an assumed or implied major or minor premise.
    • For instance,
      Socrates is mortal because he’s human.
  • Syllogism: an argument consisting of a Major Premise, a Minor Premise, and a necessary Conclusion
    • All men are mortal;
      Socrates is a man;
      Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
    • The above is the classic example of a syllogism.

Richard Conniff’s “In the Name of the Law”

This reading was more amusement, but, as you think about it, where (out there in the world) do you read/see/hear arguments that compare one group or another to Nazis? Michael Withey will tell us about a similar fallacy called Reductio ad Hitlerum (pp. 168-170).

  • “Godwin’s Law…holds that the longer an argument drags on, the likelier someone will stoop to a Hitler or Nazi analogy” (emphasis mine, para. 2)
  • Discussions of genocide…why don’t speakers go back further and point to the genocide of indigenous cultures in the Americas?
  • Prepackaged, ready-made arguments: “These little laws [e.g., Godwin’s Law] allow us to sound intelligent without having to do any homework” (para. 3)
  • What other prepackaged arguments do you hear?
    • You can never trust the government.
    • Taxes hurt businesses and economic growth.
    • Environmental regulations kill jobs.

Godwin and tonight’s other readings are discussing fallacies based on formal deductive logic. Rarely will you encounter such language outside of political speech, but you will recognize emotional appeals in a variety of messages.

Michael J. Wreen “A Bolt of Fear”

This article gets into the weeds of a rhetorical technicality that we don’t really need to cover, but it offers good examples for analysis. The title of the article has fear in it, and the article really discusses “argumentum ad baculum, or appeal to force” (p. 131). An appeal to fear (argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a similar fallacy because the attempt is to move the audience by convincing them they must do X or harm will come. Basically, instilling fear or dis-ease in the audience is key. As I’ve mentioned, the fancy Latin terms are less important than your ability to breakdown the rhetorical strategy (or support it) and demonstrate it has little or no substance.

  • p. 131: “The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader.”
  • p. 132: “…the primary intent of the arguer is action, not belief…”
    • Wreen makes a bit (too much) of a deal out of this, but his point is important: rhetorical efficacy isn’t simply about changing one’s beliefs but about calls to action.
    • This might make more sense when we consider the “Two Minutes Hate” in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
    • Just focus on the attempt at persuasion, and don’t dwell too much on whether or not the attempt works. {More on that below after this list.}
  • p. 133: Multiplicity of meanings and deliveries—”…what particular speech act is performed with a chunk of discourse on a given occasion is a function of a great many factors.”
  • p. 134: A strange twist on the prisoner’s dilemma…
    • Pay the prison guard to open up an escape route
  • p. 135: “Most arguments of everyday life are elliptical.”
    • Elliptical here means there’s a missing premise, so Wreen means they’re enthymemes.
  • p. 136: Assumptions of self-interest
  • p. 138: “…if its premises are true, its conclusion is certainly well-supported. Thus the argument is, prima facie at least, a strong one.
  • “…practice, not principle, is, in many cases, the primary aim of the arguer.”
  • p. 139: “…an ad baculum needn’t involve force, violence, an attempt to cause someone to do something, or even threats….It can be a moral or a legal ‘ought,’ or any of a number of other ought’s as well.”
    • “Ad baculum isn’t a deductive argument…”

Something I’ve often mused over are the connections among appeals to force, authority, and law. Even appeal to celebrity could fit here, but the exercise is to consider the rhetorical move of citing, invoking, or using the idea of the courts or laws as support for an argument. Consider speeding: it’s against the law to speed; you can be cited (perhaps arrested) for breaking this law; a police officer may (suggestively) force you to pull over; a traffic camera might issue you a citation; your insurance company might increase your rates for speeding. The rhetoric of law works on many different levels, which is what Wreen’s article advanced about appeals to fear. Let’s break this down:

  • Law against speeding: signs and prior knowledge inform us but we may still speed.
  • Police authority: cops are charged with going after those who break the law, and their authority influences one’s behavior (you can still think speeding is no big deal, but I doubt you’d say that to a cop…).
  • Fear of cameras: knowing that a camera might catch you breaking a traffic code could convince you (persuasion) not to speed—or run red lights.
  • Insurance rate hike: you might be motivated not to speed because you’re worried you insurance rates will go up even if you’re in good hands.

Michael Withey’s Mastering Logical Fallacies (pp. 16-64)

This book provides us with the vocabulary of logical fallacies and many good examples. I hope you bring to class examples of fallacious communication. Whereas Wreen was arguing (ha! love a pun) that ad baculum isn’t necessarily (or even primarily fallacious), Withey is detailing arguments that are fallacious. These lack substance when scrutinized. The appeals might be able to provide logical conclusions, but these appeals are rhetorical chicanery and attempt to move audiences based on unsound logic. If I haven’t mentioned the Ancients’ views on truth, I’ll do that now.

How about we at least try to find examples of the following:

Appeal to Anger (p. 40)
Appeal to Authority (p. 43)
Appeal to Celebrity (p. 45)
Appeal to Desperation (p. 50)
Appeal to Emotion (p. 53)
Appeal to Fear (p. 58)–if we don’t get to this one tonight, I have a feeling it’ll come back up

Remember the subtle difference between a fallacy and a strategy. A fallacy is false, bogus, deceitful; whereas, a strategy is neutral and employed to help persuade an audience. If you recognize the potential problem with this distinction, good! We’re not going to solve it tonight, next week, or ever. This is the ambiguity we must deal with in order to engage in higher-level critique. Buildings and makeup need foundations; intellectual exercises need dialogue. {Or a really engaging monologue…}

Next Class

Keep up with the syllabus reading. We have the second third of Michael Withey’s Mastering Logical Fallacies and the first half of Laura Locker’s Introducing American Politics. Also, your Critical Thinking Essay Draft is due on Canvas in two weeks (2/7), and the final is due in four weeks (2/21).