Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Heinrichs pp 3-37
According to Heinrichs, what is rhetoric? Is his understanding of it different or similar to your own ideas about what it is? As you begin to get into the “Offense” section, can you find any offensive argumentative tactics that you’ve never considered before? Are any of them familiar? Can you think of any situations in which they might be useful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
According to Jay Heinrichs, rhetoric is the art of influence, friendship, and eloquence, of ready wit and irrefutable logic, which harnesses the most powerful of social forces, an argument. Heinrichs’s perspective somewhat differs from my prior ideas about what rhetoric is because I never thought of it as argument based but more so having to do with a controversy or controversial issue(s). However, other than that our understandings are somewhat similar because if I had to define rhetoric I would state that it is using language effectively to persuade.
Of the offensive argumentative Tactics that Henrichs mentions, they are all familiar to me for the simple fact that I want to be a lawyer and arguing is something that I’m especially good at and very well known for. Though the tactic that I’ve never considered is seduction because my pride usually gets the best of me and my smart remarks will turn seduction straight into sarcasm, which defeats the whole purpose of that tactic. On the other hand, situations in which the other tactics would be useful are, when persuading my parents why they should allow me to move off campus, or providing my psychology teacher with a bombproof excuse as to why he should allow me to take the final examination two days early. These tactics can be used in everyday situations with the sole purpose of skillfully getting people to do what you want.
Heinrich defines rhetoric as the art of influence and power of an argument. His ideas and understanding of what rhetoric means to him, is somewhat similar to my ideas. When I think of rhetoric, I think of someone writing or speaking in order to persuade individuals. In overtly simple terms, Heinrich describes this in two simple words; influence and argument.
In the Offense section, Heinrich gives tactics on how to win an argument. One of the tactics that I have used over and over again would be the tactic of getting your way while persuading your audience. I would say that being the only child I have persuaded my parents in doing a lot of things for me. I believe that I use the tactics that Heinrich has covered in this section of the book, but usually I don’t really sit down and think about how I have persuaded and “won” an argument that day. In general, I believe that we are subconsciously using these tactics which allow us to evolve into our own individuals in society.
I believe that the tactics that would be useful in situations would be for people who are trying to sell something. I work at a gym and everyday when potential customers come in the doors, I try to sell our facility to them and make them believe that this is the gym for them to use. I persuade them by showing them the facility and all the great incentives that receive by joining. Also, for current customers they receive high quality customer service and great amenities that keeps them renewing their memberships and staying with our company for many years.
Heinrichs states that rhetoric is the art of argument. It is the art of being able to influence through the use of eloquence, ready wit, and logic. Heinrichs definition is slightly different from my understanding of rhetoric in that the terms he uses are different. Rhetoric to me means the ability to convince or persuade your audience. In the "Offense" part, Heinrichs proposes numerous offensive argumentative tactics. Of these, I have never considered the seduction one. I think it would backfire if I ever tried using it. Many of his tactics seem familiar but I do not remember any particular instances of where I've used any. Like Mandy said earlier, I think we use these tactics subconsciously. It may even come naturally to some people. I do think that these tactics can be put to good use in many situations. They can be used in the fields of marketing and advertising in terms of persuading consumers to accept a brand or product. Or even at your school or job trying to get out of trouble from turning in an assignment or project late. These tactics are used mainly to get what you want out of the situation, but of course at times they may not work the way you were hoping them to.
These first few chapters in Heinrichs' informative book intrigued me immensely. I really enjoyed all the little side notes with tips and things to try.
Rhetoric is used all the time in everyday life. As he puts it, it is the art of influence, and can be used by anyone at almost any time. These tactics can be extremely useful in life and just in general to get what you want.
I really thought about how rhetoric could be used as an art of persuasion. You have to make the other person want to have things the way you want them. You have to appeal to their every senses and convince them that they want what you do. The whole part about changing a cops mind was brilliant. I don't actually think that it will work most of the time, and I don't think that I would every try swaying a cop to do my bidding. But it was interesting to think about.
Heinrichs uses rhetoric as a means to acheive a desirable outcome. Prior to reading this, my idea of rhetoric was just a way of persuading others to see your viewpoint, which is just one part of of Heinrichs rhetoric. He uses many details when describing his tactics for winning an argument. Heinrichs' use of different tenses for different outcomes and how one must address different core issues from separate angles is something that previously I've considered in arguments, but not in depth. He uses these to try to predict the outcomes of situations and steer them in the direction he wants them to go. These offensive tactics would be very useful in both both formal and informal circumstances, so as not to get caught up in petty arguments that could later be bring regret or ill feelings.
According to Heirichs, rhetoric involves using emotions to appeal to your audience or opponent. According to Heirichs, friendship is an important component, and sometimes agreement will get you what you want, as exemplified by his experience with his son. The offensive section was funny to me and a bit cheesy. Seduction, for example, is probably the most commonly used argumentative tactics. We're taught from a young age how to use 'charm' to our advantage. I hadn't really considered what tense is the most important when trying to appeal to an audience, and did not know that each represented a different core issue. Past-Blame, Present-Values, and Future-Choice. I found this to be the most interesting and useful of tactics as most of the other ones are just part of human nature.
According to Heirichs, rhetoric involves using emotions to appeal to your audience or opponent. According to Heirichs, friendship is an important component, and sometimes agreement will get you what you want, as exemplified by his experience with his son. The offensive section was funny to me and a bit cheesy. Seduction, for example, is probably the most commonly used argumentative tactics. We're taught from a young age how to use 'charm' to our advantage. I hadn't really considered what tense is the most important when trying to appeal to an audience, and did not know that each represented a different core issue. Past-Blame, Present-Values, and Future-Choice. I found this to be the most interesting and useful of tactics as most of the other ones are just part of human nature.
I know that this is late, but I am making sure I covered all of my bases considering that I came into this class late. According to Heinrichs, rhetoric is the art of influence, friendship, and eloquence, of ready wit and irrefutable logic. He also states that argument lies behind political labeling, advertising, jargon, voices, gestures, and guilt tripsl it basically runs our social lives. Rhetoric serves as argument's decoder.
All off this basically means that rhetoric is everywhere. As for me I always thought that it was always simlpy about the art of persuasion but now after reading Heinrichs I know that it much more than that. As I read I really liked the number one rule in argument, never debate the undebatable. If people did that it would be lots less confusion in the world. Also the three core issues of argument: blame, values, and choice, are really great to know. Knowing that choice is the best argument will help difuse lots of arguments for me in the future.
Post a Comment