One of the crucial concepts you’ll need to understand to succeed in AP is the basic idea that language can be used to persuade. Diction, detail, and figurative language are tools; syntax is a tool; organization is a tool; ethos, pathos, and logos are just tools.
But HOW do we use language to persuade? What tools for the job do we choose? Which words, appeals, or organizational strategies do we choose to convince someone of a position they don’t agree with or believe in? (After all, those are the only people you actually have to convince, right?) How do we persuade people whose thoughts and values are substantially different from our own?
Part One: Convince the Other Side* Note: It doesn’t matter to me which side you take or how you define yourself or who you vote for. What matters to me is how effectively you used the tools of rhetoric to argue a position and convince an audience. Your Mission, Part I
If you define yourself as a liberal, your job is to write a brief (2-3 sentence) argument in which you are trying to convince a conservative Trump supporter of ANY TWO of the following ideas:
We should let Syrian refugees into the U.S.
We should maintain the right to same-sex marriage.
We should have universal healthcare.
If you define yourself as a conservative, your job is to write a brief (2-3 sentence) argument in which you are trying to convince a liberal Clinton/Sanders supporter of ANY TWO of the following ideas:
We should make English the official language of the U.S.
We should limit immigration of refugees from majority-Muslim countries.
We have given too much support to the notion of political correctness.
Obviously, your three sentences should consist of your claim (your basic argument), at least one or more reasons or evidence why the other person should believe you, and an explanation of why, how come, or in what way those reasons actually prove your point.
Part II: Flip the ScriptIn this part of the assignment, you'll now "flip the script" and focus your argument on a different audience: one that is already inclined to agree with you.
If you define yourself as a liberal, I want you to write a brief (2-3 sentence) argument in which you are trying to get “likes” on Facebook or Huffington Post from your fellow liberals who agree with you. Pick the same two choices you made for part I (refugees, same-sex marriage, or universal healthcare).
If you define yourself as a conservative, I want you to write a brief (2-3 sentence) argument in which you are trying to get “likes” on Facebook or Breitbart News from your fellow conservatives who agree with you. Pick the same two choices you made for part I (English, Muslim countries, political correctness).
FOR BOTH: Obviously, your three sentences should consist of your claim (your basic argument), at least one or more reasons why the other person should believe you, and an explanation of why, how come, or in what way those reasons actually prove your point.
Analyze Your Own Rhetoric, Part ISelf-Analysis: Analyze the Argument Made to the Opposite Side
Do some rhetorical analysis of your own argument.
First, analyze the arguments you made to the OPPOSITE side.
Did you find that you used abstract words or concepts such as “fairness” or “American dream” or “harm” or “patriotic” in your arguments? You probably did, and if not, one question to ask would be why.
Circle those abstract words or concepts. That will help you with the next question.
Question: In each one of your arguments you made to the opposite side, what was the central ethical or moral values that you appealed to?
Example of what I mean by "the central ethical or moral value that you appealed to."
Let's say your name was Thomas Jefferson, and this was an argument you came up with for why countries should be independent:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Your Analysis Should Look Like This In the opening sentences, Jefferson appeals to the ethical and moral value of working in harmony with natural and divine laws. Jefferson argues that Nature and God have both entitled countries to (in effect) grow up, leave home, and become their own country. Jefferson also appeals to the idea of fairness and transparency in one’s decisions, saying it’s only decent and fair that, if you’re breaking up with someone, you explain the reasons why.
Analyze Your Own Rhetoric, Part II Analyze Your Values. Are They the Same for Both Audiences? Self-Analysis: Analyze the Argument Made to the SAME Side
Do some rhetorical analysis of your own argument.
Now, analyze the arguments you made to the SAME side.
Did you find that you used abstract words or concepts such as “fairness” or “American dream” or “harm” or “patriotic” in your arguments? You probably did, and if not, one question to ask would be why.
Circle those abstract words or concepts. That will help you with the next question.
Question: In each one of your arguments you made to the opposite side, what was the central ethical or moral values that you appealed to?
Analyze Your Values. Are They the Same?
CRUCIAL STEP Now, ask yourself this question. Were the central ethical or moral values you appealed to THE SAME or SIMILAR in both of your arguments?
THEY SHOULDN'T BE.
As your audience changes, your appeal must change. If a hostile or opposed audience already shared your values, it's less likely that they would strongly disagree with you in the first place, isn't it?
What the Research Tells Us
Hostile Audience = Begin With Ethos
Where Do We Go Wrong?
Appealing to the Wrong Values
How to Reframe Your Rhetoric Successful rhetorical appeals take into account a number of factors: the subject, the exigence of the speech (that is, the immediate event that "flipped the switch"), the goals of the speaker, the context in which this speech act is taking place, and -- crucially -- the audience itself. Ignore one or more of those factors, and the speech act will be much less persuasive.
The Importance of Ethos Although "ethos" is sometimes defined as "the credibility of a speaker," I prefer the more modern definition of "an appeal to ethical and moral values shared between a speaker and an audience." After all, unless a speaker can appeal to those shared values and say, "I care about this and so do you," then they don't have much credibility with their audience in the first place.
This appeal to shared values is even more important when the audience is hostile to you or your point of view. In fact, one could make the strong argument that Martin Luther King, Jr. effectively wins the argument in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" in the first four words by appealing to ethos. Those first four words are My dear fellow clergymen.
Notice how King immediately joins himself together with the clergymen to whom this letter is officially directed. With that "my," he establishes a slight position of low-key ownership and authority, but ultimately, he shapes them into one unit of equal fellowship: they are "my...fellow clergymen," and more importantly, they are "dear" to him because as "fellow clergymen," they share a bond of values, traditions, community roles, and Christian ethics -- ethics to which King will repeatedly appeal throughout his letter. As we see, King essentially argues that one can practice Christian values or one can support segregation, but one cannot legitimately do both. By beginning with a clear appeal to these clergymen's ethical values and establishing their common ethos, King has essentially begun by assuming that they are, morally speaking, coming from the same place -- and therefore need to end up in the same place as well.
But Why Don't They See the World as I Do? As University of Toronto researcher Matt Feinberg and Stanford University sociologist Robb Willer point out, “We tend to view our moral values as universal...[we think] there are no other values but ours, and people who don't share our values are simply immoral. Yet, in order to use moral reframing you need to recognize that the other side has different values, know what those values are, understand them well enough to be able to understand the moral perspective of the other side, and be willing to use those values as part of a political argument.”*
Your Values Are Not Universal In the Martin Luther King example, King knew that he and his audience shared common Christian values -- or at the very least, that they were all supposed to share them. (After all, King and his audience were all clergymen. What kind of clergyman can one be if one does not share in the commonly recognized values respected by Christianity?)
However, King had an enormous advantage in writing to a highly specific audience whom he knew shared or were supposed to share his values. As writers, we cannot always be sure we share the same ethical values as our audience, especially an audience whose political views are radically different than our own. As Feinberg and Willer's research suggests, we all tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to our ethical values and think that either a) our values are universal, or b) if someone else does not share our values, then they are immoral.
See the full interview with Feinberg and Willer from The Atlantichere.
Based on the insights gleaned from Khazan's article, you will be reframing ONE of the arguments you made to a conservative (if you are a liberal) or a liberal (if you are a conservative). Please think about the following questions to help you reframe your rhetoric.
What key words should you use in your argument if you're appealing to the ethical values shared by conservatives?
What key words should you use in your argument if you're appealing to the ethical values shared by liberals?
What key words should you not use? What argument(s) would NOT be useful?
REQUIREMENTS
Please turn in the assignment in MLA style.
Please put the ethical value words in boldface type.
Please include your old (original) argument that you made before you read the Khazan article.
Include a brief paragraph at the end of the assignment explaining what you learned about reframing your rhetoric to your audience.
*This assignment was inspired by the following article from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-simple-psychological-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/