Transcript Demagoguery - rws200wiki

Can you think of a time when someone
tried to argue a point, or persuade you of
something, and you felt tricked by their
answer?
(Think of arguments with parents, friends with different
political stances, or political debates you’ve heard.
Particularly think of catch phrases like “Guns don’t kill
people, people kill people,” which don’t really respond to
the argument at hand but shuts down further discussion)
Demagoguery
• Demagoguery shuts down the ability to have a
productive debate.
– “A leader…who tells people that they can stop
thinking and simply act (and act simply) as s/he
dictates frees people of responsibility” (70)
• Roberts-Miller ascribes two main traits to
demagogic rhetoric:
– It polarizes
– It encourages ingroup/outgroup thinking.
“Can we develop a critical rhetoric that
articulates standards for good public
discourse that does no exclude the already
excluded?” (Roberts-Miller 65)
Terms within Roberts-Miller’s essay:
• “Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that
motivates members of an ingroup to hate and
scapegoat some outgroup(s)” (66)
– “Demagogues may try to intensify the sense of
polarization” (66)
• Polarization: “Demagogues polarize a
complicated…situation by presenting only two
options: their policy, and some obviously
stupid, impractical, or shameful one” (66)
• Motivism: Motivism is the assertion that
people don’t really have reasons for what they
do, but they are motivated by something else –
some dark motive; evil, lust, hatred, etc. (83)
• Ingroup/Outgroup Thinking: “demagogues
rely on a common way for people to view the
world: there are some people whom we think
of as “like us” in some important regard, and
others who are very different from us” (66)
• Scapegoating: “Scapegoating has been
usefully defined as “denial through
projection.”…Individuals (or communities can
deny responsibility for a situation by
projecting that responsibility onto some
outgroup” (68)
• Scapegoating often dehumanizes, or
demonizes, the outgroup that is blamed.
– “This is one of the major attractions of
demagoguery…: it takes a tremendously
complicated situation, about which people are very
anxious, and makes them feel better by presenting
a simple solution…: elimination of the outgroup
and promotion of the ingroup” (69)
• Simple solutions
• A rhetoric of fear
• Use of fallacies which violate the “rules for
productive discourse RM” describes.
10 Rules for “productive” discourse:
(Taken from Van Eemeren and Grotendoorst)
1. No engaging in personal attack, because it
prevents the disagreement from happening,
thereby precluding its being resolved (70)
2. Interlocutors are obliged to defend their
standpoint, rather than shift topic or manipulate
proof (70)
3. Interlocutors must attack the standpoint really
presented by their opponent (71)
4. Interlocutors must defend their standpoint with
relevant forms of argumentation, rather than by
manipulating their audience’s emotions (71)
5. Interlocutors must accurately represent the
unexpressed premises of themselves and other
(71)
6. Both parties must accurately represent the
accepted starting point (71)
7. No interlocutor can declare the argument
conclusively defended (72)
8. An interlocutor cannot force the other party to
accept evidence (72)
9. People must change their minds if they fail to
defend a standpoint or if the other people succeed
in defending theirs (72)
10. No “mystagoguery” – the attempt to triumph in
discourse through being so unclear that no one can
disprove the argument (because no one understands it)
You should also try to locate
elements of LaPierre’s text that are
effective and exemplify productive,
reaonable (ethical) discourse
Fallacies
• A misstep in reasoning.
– Roberts-Miller takes this a step further by arguing that
fallacies undermine our ability to engage in fair, open,
productive discourse; they risk persuading by
manipulating an audience.
• Obviously, fallacies are matters of degree and involve
interpretation and argument. When considering whether
an argument contains a fallacy, you must consider
questions of audience, purpose and context. Reasoning
that is weak or “fallacious” in one context may be
persuasive and credible in another.
Slippery Slope (Domino Theory): The common fallacy that "one thing
inevitably leads to another." E.g., "If you two go and drink coffee
together one thing will lead to another and soon enough you'll be
pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the projects”
Straw Man: The fallacy of setting up a phony, ridiculous version of an
opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down. E.g.,
"Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow
laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!"
False Analogy: Incorrectly comparing one thing to another to
draw a false conclusion. E.g., "Just like an alley cat needs to
prowl, a normal person can’t be tied down to one single lover."
• Ad Hominem Argument: The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument
by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a
corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't
believe anything he says.”
• Appeal to Pity: The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the
underdog” regardless of the issues at hand (e.g., “Those poor, cute little
squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times
their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos.
• We Have to Do Something (Scare Tactics): The fallacy that in moments
of crisis one must do something, anything, at once, even if it is an
overreaction (E.g., "Banning air passengers from carrying knitting needles
onto the plane and making babies take off their little pink baby-shoes
probably does nothing to deter hijackers, but we have to do something!”)
• Loaded Question: A loaded question is a question which contains a
controversial or unjustified assumption. Such questions may be used as
a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit replies to be those that serve
the questioner's agenda (“answer yes or no!”) E.g. An activist outside Love
Library stopping passerby’s with the question, “Do you want to stop world
hunger?” How does someone say no? It’d be much easier to give an answer
and walk away if the question was framed as “Do you want to give money
to our organization today?”
What fallacies or instances of
demagoguery, can you find in
LaPierre’s speech?
Using a text as a lens:
• “Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that
motivates members of an ingroup to hate and
scapegoat some outgroup(s)” (Roberts-Miller)
• “In ancient times, a demagogue was a leader of
the people; a popular orator who espouses the
cause of the people against any other party in
the state” (OED)
Body paragraph 1
1.
2.
3.
Identify the characteristic of demagoguery you will focus on.
Explain how Roberts-Miller defines this term, and why she thinks
it is a problem. Use a quotation from RM and explain the quote
(“what she means by this is…”)
Identify two or more places in LaPierre where there is evidence of
the element of demagoguery (try to find the best examples) Give
examples (use quotations) and explain how/to what extent the
examples fit RM’s definition. Make a case for your interpretation
(be like a lawyer – this is key). It may be that the examples only fit
RM’s definition to some degree. Explain this.
Explain why these strategies may have been used in the context,
and the possible effects on the audience. Explain why, according
the RM, using such a strategy is problematic.