Bypassing the larger discussion of Aristotle's influence on western rhetoric (he's been in the limelight too long anyway and I'm tired of talking about him), let's instead think about Cicero for this post.
Cicero highlights the importance of planning and constructing the speech, especially pointing out how crucial it is to know your audience and be able to adapt the speech to them. He lists 5 cases a speaker might need to make based on their audience: the honorable, the astonishing, the low, the doubtful, and the obscure.
Here's a short clip from an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia that I want to use to exemplify these cases and bring them into a modern context. In it, the character "Mac" attempts to suade his friends so they no longer believe in evolution. (Disclaimer: there is a bit of strong language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0
I think you can see 4 different cases of audience in this clip, most noticeably Dennis ("Mr. Reynolds") as the astonishing case because he vehemently disagrees with the argument Mac is presenting and Charlie as the obscure case because he doesn't really know what's going on. Frank (Danny Devito) would most likely be the low case because he doesn't seem to care about the argument while Dee (the blonde woman) struck me as the doubtful case because she wasn't as vocal about her disagreement as Dennis was but also definitely didn't agree with Mac. The only case left is the honorable one, where an audience is inclined to believe the orator right away.
All four people included in Mac's audience have one thing in common, however, which is that they're all (somewhat) normal citizens in society; Mac even plays into this at the beginning of his argument when he assures them that he's "just a regular dude," which seems to convince at least Charlie of his credibility. I make this point because unlike Plato, Cicero believed that the general public was just as important to take into consideration as the people with power, no matter how "ignorant" they may appear to be.
Aside from these cases, this clip provides an example of when humor is used within an argument, which is something Cicero also talks about. Cicero states that humor is a way to solidify yourself as a superior orator/rhetorician, so long as you know when to use it. Cicero would definitely argue that Mac did NOT use humor correctly here--slapping a bold, red insult across the faces of people your opponents would find respectable is the same as committing rhetorical suicide in his eyes.
It's interesting to think about how humor in rhetoric has evolved since ancient times--while Cicero would have disapproved of crude humor being used in an argument, Mac's friends certainly don't, and I think this sentiment is common in the US today. Mockery is used in arguments so much in present times that it often replaces actual criticism. Instead of saying that I think you might be reacting too impulsively to the actions of a person, I call you a snowflake. Instead of telling you that your way of thinking is dated and problematic, I call you a boomer. We've created insults to take the place of full-length arguments (not that this is anything particularly new), which I think Cicero would be appalled at. Even more so, making fun of your opponents actually seems to work more nowadays than presenting facts and evidence does (at least in my opinion), something that is illuminated in the video clip I showed.
As flawed as Mac's argument is, it kind of also makes sense in that just because someone says something it's not automatically true. We as a society keep growing and disproving old theories all the time, it doesn't make sense to keep using outdated systems when we could instead adapt new ones to fit modern times. Perhaps this is a view that should be more widespread within the realm of rhetoric--just because some old white guys said some things about rhetoric centuries ago doesn't mean we need to keep following them now. Cicero's own writings might seem ill-advised looking back, for after all he talked about not making your audience angry he ended up getting executed anyway.
And then he had his head and hands displayed to ward off other orators that were tempted to speak too eloquently to the ruler, kind of making him and everyone that followed his rules of rhetoric look like a... well, you know.
I love the equivalency you drew between Mac and us criticizing Aristotle/other old white Greek guys in class. This is one of my favorite bits in Always Sunny and it rings so true to the conversations about "post-Truth" we've been having in class. I don't think this is quite what you meant to talk about, but your mention about insults in rhetoric, particularly "snowflake", reminded me of how it's a deliberate strategy in white supremacist rhetoric to make the other party feel like they are being oversensitive or overreacting--and words like "snowflake", SJW, and so on help accomplish this--when in reality they are responding appropriately to bigoted ideas. I feel like I'm all over the place in this comment but I feel like it just goes to say that old Greek men could never have anticipated the rhetoric that emerged (and is still emerging) with new media, so we definitely need a new, more relevant set of rules to go by! Great post!
ReplyDeleteI've never watched Always Sunny, but that clip is hilarious!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting analysis on the ways we see rhetoric represented in pop culture, whether or not it is a portrayal that rings true to rhetorical theories through history. I love your points about Mac including and appealing to his audience by proposing that he is just a trust-able, regular guy, which may build what many modern thinkers describe ethos as.
ReplyDeleteYou also make a great point about the way this clip reflects our current society when arguing, especially regarding the use of insults towards an orator's opponent. Oftentimes, contemporary speakers defer to derogatory language in an argument, rather than pointing out genuine observations regarding the opposing side. And, just like we have seen in this clip, this approach does have the ability to work on certain audiences.
I enjoyed this post because Cicero is not a philosopher you hear much about, so I like that you delved deeper into his theories of argument. I agree that is has become easier to argue with insults in society today that to actually debate with real facts. I find that when people begin to lose, they want to start using emotion to attack rather than facts because they do not have anymore facts to use. It is sad when that happens, but I agree that society is definitely more used to using insults as a form of argument rather than actual facts.
ReplyDeleteI kind of don't want to look into the ASiP argument because it is totally fictional (that is to say, invented by a writer to be humorous and not necessarily realistic), but I'm gonna do it anyway.
ReplyDeleteSo, when you say that insulting people your audience respects is a bad choice, that is true. However, the way Mac did it was very good, and really helped drive his argument home. Because being funny was just a side effect making a good argument. I kinda wanna expand on this, but that would end up making this comment far too long. So, oh well.
Anyway, that was the only point in your post I didn't fully agree with. Even then, you are probably right when you suggest what Cicero might think of Mac. Cool post. I though it was funny, AND you made me consider how well written that scene was.
I really like how you've tied the idea of "cases" into a modern example with that clip--it really helps demonstrate what Cicero was talking about. Alongside Aristotle, I think Cicero's influence can still be felt in the education system. For example, in COMM210, we definitely covered something at least similar to the cases; the idea that audiences of different backgrounds and familiarity require different argumentative strategies was stressed in several chapters of the book I read for the course. I think the author may have even referred to these classifications as "Cases." I can't remember if Cicero was mentioned, though. Also--everyone in this class is hilarious--this is the best class blog I've been a part of in any of Dr. Mike's courses because of fun posts like these.
ReplyDeleteso much of rhetoric is adding your perspective and fitting it into another's life and their values, instead of making them fit your perspective and values; relating to your audience is like the #1 thing they teach you in comm210 and it is important when crafting a speech or argument
ReplyDeleteThis post was so funny! You did a really great job of balancing the humor with the actual content, though. While you are using humor (at the end) to claim that Cicero was "a... well, you know," you also construct a solid, logical argument about the characters and Mac's presentation. The use of insults in place of arguments is something we see a TON of in today's culture, especially when we look at the highest government office in the United States.
ReplyDelete