Here are the brainstorming exercises from today's class. Please make sure and post your response (including a response to the final question before class on Thursday).
1. What kind of rhetoric, persuasive discourse, or writing interests you (including, but not limited to, the persuasive op-ed pieces in the New York Times)? Generate a list of all the possible kinds of writing that you might focus on for this assignment.
2. Circle or highlight the three kinds of writing or discourse that interests you the most.
3. Pick one of these kinds of writing and make a list of possible primary sources, or individual texts, that you could use as a primary text and analyze for this assignment.
4. Write a brief paragraph that explores why this kind of writing and these texts interest you. What do you expect to learn from analyzing them? Why might this analysis be significant?
5. Share one promising idea for this assignment with the rest of us.
6. Before class on Thursday, post your brainstorm to our course blog. Conclude your initial brainstorm with a brief paragraph that explains how you’re planning to complete our first assignment. Identify your primary text(s) and locate at least one secondary source that you think looks promising.
7. Last, if you have any questions or are struggling with ideas for this assignment, please feel free to include them in your response as well. Thanks!
1. Interesting Ideas:
ReplyDeletePolitical speeches on world politics
*Public presentations on historical buildings that are going to be torn down*
*Speeches on Greek life and the negative stereotypes that are associated with it*
*Some sort of music-a particular artist, song, genre that persuades*
Speeches on being green, like an inconvenient truth or similar presentations
3. Primary sources for music topic: Song lyrics protesting Vietnam War (Dylan), lyrics by Kanye West/Eminem which discuss current topics like war and discrimination, various lyrics by Rolling Stones
4. Music as a form of rhetoric interests me because music plays a daily role in many people’s lives. It has the power to persuade listeners because it is so widespread. Through the analysis of music which protests the Vietnam War, I could learn quite a bit about the influence music has on generations and how lyrics can be used to gain support for a particular cause. This analysis would be significant because it shows that artists have motives to create music which promotes their beliefs. When listening to music, people should consider the arguments an artist makes for his or her cause.
6. At this point, I think I am going to analyze the persuasiveness of a few Bob Dylan songs, like “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “The Times are a Changin’,” and “Man on the Street.” I will compare the rhetoric used each song, show how it relates to the argument, and appraise the overall effectiveness of the piece. As a secondary source, I may use “The Vietnam War and American Music” by David James to add context. This article discusses the effect these songs, and similar songs, had on youth culture and their feelings towards the war.
1. Some persuasive piece about sufferage
ReplyDeleteLincoln-Douglas debates
Op-ed pieces from NYTs debating wisdom of getting involved in Libya.
Gould ‘Evolution as Fact and Theory’
2. Some persuasive piece about sufferage
Lincoln-Douglas debates
Gould ‘Evolution as Fact and Theory’
3. Gould article, primary text would be ‘Evolution as Fact and Theory’
4. Interested in the article because it is a large basis of my major, and many people don’t really think of scientists as being mast rhetoricians. This is true for some, for example Darwin’s actual ‘Origin of the species’ is an incredibly difficult piece to read. However, Gould manages to portray an interesting take of his idea of evolution versus creationism in an interesting and rather rhetorical manner.
5. Analyzing scientific rhetoric versus more ‘traditional rhetoric.
6. Primary text would be ‘Evolution as Fact and Theory’, possible secondary text would be ‘Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric’.
Brainstorm:
ReplyDeleteDomestic issues that our nation faces (i.e. Education)
*Speeches on good/bad parenting (i.e. Toddlers in Tiaras)
*Rhetoric of a Fox News editorial vs. CNN article? Is politics really at play in articles from these sources?
*Health issues (Gluten Intolerance)
Gluten Intolerance: Primary Sources: Opinion article that tries to persuade those who are diagnosed with Celiac Disease to consider themselves lucky and/or Article in the NY Times or an academic source that provides a scientific perspective to Celiacs and/or Gluten Intolerance.
For this piece of writing, I am most interested in exploring an Opinion article about gluten intolerance. I have Celiacs Disease and whenever I tell people that I can't eat anything with wheat, barley, rye, or malt in it, they tend to respond with the words "You must be devastated!" And, most of the time, I nod in compliance. But recently, I read an article that tries to persuade those who have a Celiacs diagnosis to consider themselves lucky. This is the first time I have ever read any sort of published article that claims that Celiacs Disease is actually a good thing. Analysis of this argument, I believe, will not only give me the opportunity to look at the effectiveness of an argument that hasn't been discussed in mainstream culture, but it could also (possibly) alter my perspective on my own personal situation.
How persuasive is the author in making her claim that it is a blessing to be gluten intolerant? The author certainly took a risk when she made her claim, and I aim to analyze the effectiveness of her argument. As a secondary source, I will use a variety of academic articles to support the medical assertions the author of my primary source makes.
1) Ideas:
ReplyDeleterhetoric of election campaigns
UN speeches (convincing other countries to join cause)
Vietnam War/antiwar
Rhetoric of Manifest Destiny
Justifications of financial collapse (2007)
Of why Federalist Papers so successful
2) Three Most interesting:
UN speeches
Financial collapse
Federalist Papers
3) Possible primary texts:
For Federalist Papers, most influential. Especially Federalist 10 (overbearing majority), 51 and 81.
Also as ancillary, Anti-federalist Papers to show contrast.
4) Why its interesting and significant:
After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a huge chasm developed between revolutionary leaders who championed a stronger central government, and those who remained states'-rights focused. These two schools of thought developed into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist camps, respectively. In the intellectual circles of the the new country, a debate ensued, in which the two camps produced innumerable documents in efforts to win over the population--at least those who had a say in the form of the new government. These persuasive documents, now known as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, exhibit a striking contrast in rhetoric. After years of competing publications, it was agreed that the Federalists had been more persuasive. Due to their rhetoric, the United States began with a system that placed the powers of the national government over that of the states'. This origin still undisputably shapes todays government.
5) Promising Idea
I really feel that the UN speeches idea would be very interesting to research--especially in regards to the current Libya situation. Just as in any democratic venue, rhetoric places a vital role, but the UN exhibits a slightly different situation because it also concerns the hegemony of different nations. Analyzing the success of different countries' appeals would be intriguing.
6) How planning to complete/ secondary text:
I definitely want to puruse the Federalist Papers idea. Since these documents are so vital to the foundation of the country, I feel that there will be many secondary sources that examine why the Federalist Papers were so successful--especially in comparison to the Antifederalist Papers. My primary texts will be a few of the Federalist Papers (definitely number 10 and one or two more) and an excerpt from an Anti-federalist Paper. A secondary source that I have priliminarily found is entitled, "Detecting Collaborations in Text
Comparing the Authors’ Rhetorical Language Choices in The Federalist Papers" by a collaboration of scholars from Carnegie Melon University and University of Pittsburgh. I will need to research this source in more depth, however it seems promising.
During fall quarter I wrote a rhetorical analysis of a speech by Milton Friedman. I will most likely analyze another work by Friedman for this assignment. My interest in Friedman has stemmed from my interest in political economics and how they influence daily life. Because of his controversial views of politics, another interesting rhetor to analyze would be Glenn Beck. Other rhetors that interest me include Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
ReplyDeleteA speech by Friedman that particularly interests me is "The Social Responsibility of Businesses Is to Increase Their Profits". If not this, I will probably analyze another of his speeches or essays.
My interests are deeply vested in economics and the well-being of our economy and businesses. Friedman often explores very unique and interesting solutions to our nation's most infamous problems while still supporting the free-market, pro-capitalism system. I hope to gain a deeper insight into Friedman's ideas, in hopes that they may influence my ideas about public policy. This analysis is significant because we all can benefit from expanding our knowledge of our economy.
This assignment has the potential to expand our knowledge of rhetoric, and give us the power to apply it in daily life.
I think it’s interesting to look at speeches and how successful or unsuccessful they are in persuading their audience, especially during times of political upheaval or social changes. This could be an option for our first essay. Another type of rhetoric that grabs my attention is the op-ed pieces in the NYT about medicine. This is often a highly debated topic with emphasis on everything from malpractice, to different medical advances and the ethics behind them. Other ideas that have recently been widely discussed are the changing nature of political parties and how some republicans are becoming more moderate within certain categories. Also, op-ed articles on race and equality are ever present in the NYT and the rhetoric that the author uses is interesting to look at since it is oftentimes a taboo topic that racism still exists.
ReplyDeleteToday’s paper talked in depth about malpractice and how Obama’s healthcare plan is attempting to rid doctors of any responsibility. This op-ed piece can be used as a primary source, in addition to other articles written about the medical field. Also in today’s paper was an article about the importance of vaccines even though more recently they have been given a bad rep.
The different views and debates that take place around the medical field are of high interest to me. The various texts are full of rhetoric, especially pathos because so much of the medical field has to do with ethical situations and, more obviously, life and death. Through this analysis, I hope to find if there is a common trend among writers of the medical field in order to convince their audience. Do they all use mostly the same tools to persuade their audience or is it more varied? Debates among the medical community are arguably one of the most highly debated and warrant the largest emotional response. I am curious as to why this is the case. The information that I find will be significant because it will help to decipher many medically based arguments. If most medical rhetors use mostly the same tools to convey their message, then perhaps a faulty or incorrect argument will be more apparent to me as a reader.
Regarding primary sources, through the NYT I have found 2 articles in the op-ed section that deal with malpractice. The article that I'm leaning towards, titled "Treat the Patient, Not the CT Scan" discusses the influence of technology on the medical field and how it has lead doctors to loose some of their beside manor and be less personable with their patients. Although this seems like a good start, I am still searching for other options that hopefully have stronger uses of rhetorical tools. Since I am still looking for a primary source, I have also had trouble finding secondary sources. I am not sure where or what texts to look for that discuss different medical op-ed pieces.
Possible Ideas:
ReplyDelete-a pair of pieces about the same current event (Libya, the economy etc.) with opposing views
-one of Barack Obama’s speeches
-a publication by Francis Crick and
James Watson about DNA structures
Analyzing pieces for rhetoric (especially pieces which significantly affect our lives) is important because it allows us to find a closer version of our own, personal “truth.” We can break down the methods of persuasion which are used on us and attempt to make an educated decision about our opinions on a particular issue.
For this assignment, I want to analyze one of Barack Obama’s speeches, specifically, A More Perfect Union. In this speech, Barack Obama employs a number of rhetorical devices in order to address the racial accusations which he received during the presidential campaign. The version that I found of the speech is written and can be listened to, so I want to find the use of rhetoric in both the textual and audio versions. For secondary sources, I may use an article by a journalist discussing the speech or a speech by another political figure also discussing the issue of race relations.
-Discourse between changing/shifting technologies and how they affect our future and the younger generation
ReplyDelete-Discourse on the new abortion law in South Dakota
-One of Hilary Clinton’s speeches on the status of women
-Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture
-Analyzing the rhetoric of Minnesota Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, and its effects of how she’s become perceived in the state.
Michele Bachmann: Primary Source: her response to the State of the Union in January, any other speech she has made – maybe about her lightbulb act or her blundering ‘shot heard around the world’ speech in which she confused New Hampshire for Massachusetts.
These texts interest me because the majority of my family is from and lives in Minnesota, and so I am constantly hearing their thoughts of Representative Michele Bachmann whether they approve of her or not. I find it interesting that she started her political campaign with so much support. Watching this support dwindle due to several of her key speeches fascinates me. Her rhetoric has in fact turned off many of her own party and their support for her. I am expecting to learn from analyzing her speeches and responses to them how it is possible to use rhetoric to support or demolish your credibility, especially in the political world. This is significant because politicians have the power to affect our everyday life, and people’s opinions change on who to vote for reflecting upon which candidate presents himself/herself the best whether it is in disposition, rhetoric, or any other way.
One promising idea for this assignment is analyzing the rhetoric of a current politician and watching the affects of her words on her state and their ever-shifting opinion of her.
I am planning to read over several different speeches by Bachmann to see which one best represents her rhetoric for my primary source. As for secondary sources, I have come across many articles in the Minnesota Independent newspaper analyzing her speeches. Also some articles in the Twin City’s magazine, The City Pages, are opinions on her rhetoric and the way Bachmann presents herself to the rest of the state and nation. I am going to try to find a variety of opinion pieces to use that are not biased and one-sided for or against Bachmann.
1,2) Political Speeches by:
ReplyDelete*Dictators/considered oppressive leaders [by the Western world]
*By American Presidential candidates (Obama, McCain)
*Religious preachings
Writings on controversial issues
Stem cell research
Analyses of government spending
3)Speeches by Dictators
Hitler
Mussolini
Ahmadinejad
Fidel Castro
4) These writing topics all involve the negative conviction of people on a massive scale. By analyzing them from an outside perspective, I expect the persuasive techniques that the various leaders used to be obvious. However, I am also curious to determine if the persuasive appeals are able to affect me, a cynical and educated reader, knowing that they were extremely persuasive to a broad audience in their respective, historical kairos. I believe that the research of historically entrancing leaders is crucial to being an active citizen and audience member of speeches given by contemporary political leaders.
5)Analyzing a persuasive speech by a dictator
6) I plan on analyzing a speech given by Adolf Hitler on February 20, 1938 in which he declares Germany's intentions to the Reichstag. I will search the text for rhetorical appeals, research the economic situation of Germany in the years following World War I to understand the rhetorical situation in which Hitler was speaking, and I will find a recording of one of his speeches to gain insight into his infamously charismatic delivery. I have found a secondary text called, "The Arts of Leadership" by Keith Grint which contains general information about persuasive communication, as well as a chapter analyzing Hitler specifically and what techniques he used to be an effective leader.
7) I had some difficulty settling on a which speaker to use, because so many seemed interesting. I chose Hitler primarily because I have never specifically studied his speeches before, and there is a wealth of previously published material analyzing him. Do you recommend me choosing a speaker who is less "overdone?"
1. Political Speeches, Op. Ed. Pieces , Policy Paper
ReplyDelete3. Political Speeches: Angela Glover Blackwell Speech, MLK Speech, Obama Race Speech
4. Political speeches, opinion and editorial texts, and policy papers or evaluations are some of the fundamental drivers of, well, pretty much everything that happens in our country, in our foreign policy, and in countries around the world. Furthermore, these inherently argumentative texts put in to practice much of what we have discussed so far; that is, these texts, in face of an exigency work (one hopes) from some basis of fact (often provided by “non-partisan” organizations tasked with producing “fact”) to explain a given situation and then call groups (variously: politicians, the elite, corporations, the populace) to action.
By understanding the rhetoric presented in these texts, we gain further understanding of the nature of political discourse.
5. Currently, I plan to analyze the rhetoric used in a speech that deals with race in Public Policy and Political Discourse and compare and contrast this rhetoric with research-based conclusions as to the general state of rhetoric in such discourses.
Primary: Glover Blackwell, Angela. Race & Changing Demographics in Policy and Political Discourse, KFLA Forum 11: Civic Engagement, Washington D.C., March 4, 2011.
Secondary: Steinberg, Stephen. "Immigration, African Americans, and Race Discourse." New Politics 10.3 (2005): 42. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
1. Motivational speeches
ReplyDelete2. Speeches that work to change society
3. Legislative arguments
4. Calls to action
5. Political cartoons
6. Comic strips that have a social argument
I’m interested in motivational speeches because of the phenomenal power that language carries. After the pre-game speeches of sports movies, presidential speeches regarding our nation’s current position, and other motivational instances I feel inspired to go out and act. I want to study the elements of a speech that make it powerful. What about language physically grabs the reader and commands them to act? I have chosen FDR’s First Inaugural Address to analyze for this assignment. This address came in a time when our country was threatening to deteriorate and break apart at the seams. FDR successfully brought the country together through this address and set the stage for one of the most significant historical periods of the United States. How did FDR establish leadership and control through this address? I want to study the rhetorical structures of this piece so that I can better understand what audiences like to hear. Finding primary sources discussing this speech should not be difficult in any way. I plan to complete this assignment by doing research about the Great Depression and the angst within our nation at that time. This will aid in the explanation of kairos in the speech. It will also establish background information about FDR as an individual and the political conditions that he worked through. After establishing background information I will move forward, analyzing what rhetorical moves give the speech its power. I expect to see very powerful appeals to pathos and logos, but I’m intrigued to see what other strategies I can find in the speech.
Here are some types of writing/discourse that interest me, and possible examples of texts.
ReplyDelete-Historical documents on art literature: 19th c. "Music of the Future" debate--critiques of composers, letters, essays; Poe's essays on literary technique; modern scholarly essays that seek to "uncover agendas" in the absolute music of the 19th c.
-Other historically-grounded documents: Gothic rhetoric in writings about the French Revolution; Mark Twain on Science (sometimes parodying scientific thought); Enlightenment philosophers on Science (illuminating the views of the time)
I have chosen to analyze a scholarly essay by Susan McClary, a self-proclaimed "feminist musicologist," which falls into the category of "uncovering agendas in absolute music." This topic is interesting to me in that it involves a distinct debate dating back to the 19th century on whether there is any such thing as "absolute music." Thus, it reveals something about a wide-reaching debate in the artistic/cultural spheres of a particular era. In addition, however, it incorporates very specific modern feminist rhetoric, so I can examine the feminist movement and its discourses as well. Personally, I think Susan McClary's argument in the essay is fairly ridiculous and may or may not hold water. However, it undeniably utilizes a very specific rhetoric and I think I can draw out how McClary is representative of a broader feminist philosophy, as well as exploring the historical controversy which forms the basis for her article--a controversy which uses its own rhetoric. Thus, there is something of a "double rhetoric" here, which I find interesting.