Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Fear of persuasion in the English language arts

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - Literature

View more figures from University of Massachusetts at Amherst

View the page of David Fleming

Read the Study

Persuasion, the act of influencing or trying to influence others by appealing to their beliefs, values, and emotions, was long the focus of rhetorical art; and skill in persuasion, the goal of rhetorical education. David Fleming discusses how persuasion gradually lost its place in both rhetorical theory and pedagogy.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 1, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video reflects on the changing landscape of political communication and education in the United States, particularly after the 2016 presidential election. The speaker discusses the shock many academics felt regarding the election outcome, which highlighted a perceived collapse in the foundations of public discourse and the ability to engage across political divides.

The speaker critiques modern philosophical attempts to separate rhetoric from discourse, arguing that this has contributed to a sense of alienation in public decision-making. Instead of merely relying on facts and logical argumentation, the speaker advocates for a renewed appreciation of persuasion, emphasizing that emotions and personal connections are integral to effective communication.

This video video also highlights the decline of public speaking and debate in American education, attributing some of this to the rise of standardized testing and the Common Core curriculum, which emphasizes logical argumentation at the expense of persuasive discourse. The speaker points out troubling binaries emerging in educational settings that view persuasion as separate from argumentation, which undermines the teaching of effective communication skills.

Overall, the speaker calls for a more holistic understanding of rhetoric that incorporates emotion, personal investment, and the complexities of human reasoning to foster more integrative and effective political discourse.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are some similar articles that explore themes of political communication, education, and the role of rhetoric in public discourse:

1. **"The State of Political Communication Post-2016: A Shift in Strategies"** - This article examines how the 2016 presidential election has led to changes in political communication strategies among candidates and parties, including an increased focus on emotional appeals and the importance of connecting with voters on a personal level.

2. **"Rhetoric and Emotion: Bridging the Divide in Public Discourse"** - This piece discusses the role of emotional engagement in rhetoric, highlighting the necessity of integrating emotions into political arguments to foster understanding and bridge ideological divides.

3. **"Education Reform and the Loss of Public Speaking: A Critical Analysis"** - This article critiques recent education reforms, such as the Common Core standards, which prioritize logical reasoning over effective speaking and persuasion skills in classrooms, and explores the implications for future generations.

4. **"The Role of Persuasion in Political Communication: Beyond Facts and Logic"** - This article argues for the revival of persuasive techniques in political communication, emphasizing that engaging individuals emotionally can lead to more fruitful discussions across political differences.

5. **"Standardized Testing and the Erosion of Debate Skills: An Educational Crisis"** - This article links standardized testing practices to a decline in debate and public speaking skills in American education, discussing the potential long-term effects on political engagement and discourse.

6. **"The Dividing Lines of Rhetoric: Understanding Persuasion vs. Argumentation"** - This article explores the philosophical underpinnings of communication, investigating how separating persuasion from logical argumentation can create barriers in public dialogue and diminish the effectiveness of communication.

7. **"Reviving Rhetorical Education: A Call for Comprehensive Communication Skills"** - This piece advocates for a renewed focus on rhetoric in educational curricula, arguing for teaching styles that embrace emotional intelligence, persuasive techniques, and the nuances of human interaction to better prepare students for civic engagement.

Each of these articles delves into aspects of rhetoric, education, and political communication similar to those mentioned in your video, discussing the implications of these themes on public discourse and civic life.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:03.125
You know, I think for Rhetoricians, the, you know,

00:03.125 --> 00:04.725
all this can be really traced back

00:04.725 --> 00:08.085
to the 2016 US presidential election.

00:08.285 --> 00:11.085
I think it was just a shock to so many of us.

00:11.095 --> 00:14.165
There was obviously the, the electoral defeat.

00:14.545 --> 00:17.245
Uh, and even, you know, obviously from a kind

00:17.245 --> 00:20.525
of a partisan point of view, this was disappointing for lots

00:20.525 --> 00:23.685
of, kind of left-leaning academics.

00:23.825 --> 00:27.085
But there was a sense that they, you know, they, they kind

00:27.085 --> 00:31.605
of clearly superior set of beliefs, you know, had,

00:31.945 --> 00:35.405
had, you know, had, had, was not just contested,

00:35.465 --> 00:37.085
but it had actually lost the,

00:37.225 --> 00:39.845
the majority vote in large parts of the country.

00:39.985 --> 00:44.485
And I think this was kind of, shocking for,

00:44.865 --> 00:45.885
for a lot of people

00:45.985 --> 00:49.685
and kind of concerning for what that meant for the,

00:49.865 --> 00:52.005
the appeal of positions

00:52.025 --> 00:55.045
and beliefs that that seemed to be, in some ways

00:55.905 --> 00:57.405
so, so dangerous.

00:57.705 --> 01:01.645
Uh, but I think even worse than that, for a a lot of people,

01:01.845 --> 01:04.445
a lot of educators interested in politics

01:04.465 --> 01:07.365
and rhetoric was a sense, you know,

01:07.365 --> 01:08.725
and I think this, you know, was,

01:08.945 --> 01:11.685
was happening across the globe around this time was,

01:11.705 --> 01:14.605
was a sense that the very foundations of, of

01:15.765 --> 01:19.285
a political communication, had, had collapsed.

01:19.285 --> 01:22.005
That there was a sense, perhaps exaggerated,

01:22.065 --> 01:25.925
but there was a sense that, it was now impossible even

01:26.065 --> 01:28.205
to talk across divides.

01:28.205 --> 01:31.005
It wasn't just that, you know, you might lose a debate.

01:31.745 --> 01:34.845
Uh, it was that you, you could no longer debate.

01:34.845 --> 01:37.885
There was a sense that the actual kind of foundations,

01:38.805 --> 01:42.365
a kind of a shared sense of reality, had, had been lost.

01:42.625 --> 01:46.365
And, I think that was a real kind of shock to,

01:46.545 --> 01:48.765
to the system for, for lots of people like me,

01:48.785 --> 01:51.685
and people had different kind of solutions

01:51.905 --> 01:53.325
for it over the past few years.

01:53.515 --> 01:58.445
There's, you know, there a, a, a kind of a raw,

01:59.025 --> 02:02.285
political, sense that we just now have

02:02.285 --> 02:03.685
to fight it out to the end.

02:03.905 --> 02:06.005
And this will be an existential battle.

02:06.145 --> 02:09.845
And, you know, one side will, will be eliminated

02:09.945 --> 02:10.965
and the other not.

02:11.225 --> 02:14.325
But I think, you know, other people have offered,

02:14.705 --> 02:17.365
you know, maybe more kind of educational solutions.

02:17.585 --> 02:21.325
We need to kind of, teach history better.

02:21.425 --> 02:22.845
We need to teach empathy better.

02:23.385 --> 02:25.885
And obviously lots of technical solutions having to do

02:25.885 --> 02:29.765
with fact checking and, social media and all that.

02:30.225 --> 02:34.605
Uh, for me, I, I came to realize that, you know, the,

02:34.665 --> 02:38.645
the old line, that the only antidote for bad rhetoric

02:39.185 --> 02:40.205
was more rhetoric.

02:40.905 --> 02:43.525
Uh, I, I came to see the kind of truth than that.

02:43.545 --> 02:47.045
And I, I actually, in a way, it kind of brought me back

02:47.225 --> 02:51.925
to the, the origins of my, of my discipline and persuasion,

02:52.065 --> 02:55.205
and a reapp appreciation, for,

02:55.345 --> 02:57.485
for persuasion even understanding.

02:57.835 --> 02:59.085
It's in incredible,

03:00.105 --> 03:03.845
Um, you know, difficulties and, and vulnerabilities.

03:04.465 --> 03:08.365
You know, rhetoric is a, is a Greek word, Greek

03:08.385 --> 03:12.605
and origin, the, the art of the public speaker, the art

03:12.605 --> 03:16.125
of the re, in Athens, kind

03:16.125 --> 03:18.125
of meant the art of the politician.

03:18.865 --> 03:21.525
Uh, it had opponents from the very beginning,

03:21.545 --> 03:23.085
the most famous being Plato.

03:23.825 --> 03:27.405
Um, but in some ways it, it won the educational battle

03:27.465 --> 03:31.485
of antiquity and became really the center as the art

03:31.485 --> 03:35.485
of persuasion, kind of the, the center of education,

03:35.555 --> 03:38.685
from antiquity up through the European Renaissance.

03:39.185 --> 03:41.725
And, had ups and downs.

03:42.505 --> 03:45.485
Uh, but there was a sense that,

03:45.485 --> 03:46.925
persuasion was necessary

03:47.465 --> 03:49.565
and you had to train people to do it well,

03:49.585 --> 03:52.885
and you had to, to, to also

03:52.985 --> 03:56.445
to think carefully about, the dangers of persuasion

03:56.445 --> 04:00.965
and how, how a community could, could,

04:01.265 --> 04:03.085
could, could, could, you know,

04:03.085 --> 04:04.245
could think about those things.

04:05.105 --> 04:08.605
Um, the, the kind of classic story is

04:08.605 --> 04:12.965
that the enlightenment in Europe becomes a moment, not just

04:13.035 --> 04:15.445
that, questions, rhetoric.

04:15.725 --> 04:18.285
Rhetoric had always been questioned and, and rightfully so,

04:18.285 --> 04:21.485
because it's a, it's a, you know, it's a very fraught,

04:21.505 --> 04:22.525
enterprise.

04:23.185 --> 04:24.245
But I think,

04:24.505 --> 04:28.285
modern philosophers began actually an attempt,

04:29.045 --> 04:33.405
explicitly to banish rhetoric from, from philosophy,

04:33.435 --> 04:34.805
from the education system.

04:34.985 --> 04:37.885
And I, I draw a lot here on,

04:37.895 --> 04:42.445
Brian Garten's 2006 book Saving Persuasion, where he really

04:42.975 --> 04:45.805
walks through, kind of,

04:45.845 --> 04:50.085
foundational modern philosophers, Hobbes, Rousseau Kant,

04:50.625 --> 04:54.365
and shows how they attempted to, in some sense,

04:55.245 --> 05:00.205
alienate ordinary powers of judgment, to

05:00.835 --> 05:02.405
authorities of various kind,

05:02.405 --> 05:06.405
whether it was a sovereign person in a, in a king,

05:06.405 --> 05:08.565
whether it was a representative body

05:09.075 --> 05:11.565
that would make all the decisions for us,

05:12.145 --> 05:15.325
or whether in a kind of a conent sense, it was public reason

05:15.395 --> 05:20.205
with a capital R, that would, that would,

05:20.745 --> 05:24.045
you know, move away from rhetoric, from the passions,

05:24.045 --> 05:27.805
from prejudices, from partisanship,

05:27.865 --> 05:32.325
and attempt to, to make all decisions based on reason alone.

05:33.025 --> 05:34.525
And this is, of course, in some ways,

05:34.565 --> 05:37.005
a very attractive, position.

05:37.425 --> 05:41.325
Uh, you know, I think all of us are, are in some sense,

05:41.385 --> 05:45.845
afraid of letting major decisions, you know, left up

05:45.905 --> 05:46.925
to, to the people.

05:47.665 --> 05:49.165
Um, but I,

05:49.185 --> 05:53.245
but Garten, I think is right, that which is that,

05:53.265 --> 05:54.725
you know, the, the dangers

05:54.745 --> 05:58.605
of the modern philosophical project in some ways are worse

05:58.605 --> 06:00.685
than the dangers of, of rhetoric.

06:00.685 --> 06:02.365
Certainly from the point of view of democracy.

06:02.745 --> 06:06.765
We have to learn, to appreciate persuasion,

06:06.825 --> 06:10.045
to carve out the space where it is, it is appropriate,

06:10.665 --> 06:14.245
and to, to tame as much as we can, vice

06:14.395 --> 06:17.525
that are associated, with it.

06:17.785 --> 06:19.885
And, and in some sense that,

06:20.275 --> 06:22.285
that I think has been the project of what a lot

06:22.285 --> 06:24.885
of people have called the new rhetoric, from the,

06:24.915 --> 06:27.965
from the, say mid 20th century, on,

06:27.985 --> 06:29.285
and it's been an uphill climb.

06:29.385 --> 06:33.045
The, the modern philosophers, you know, in,

06:33.305 --> 06:36.925
in some ways we're, we're very persuasive themselves and,

06:37.105 --> 06:40.565
and have made us afraid of,

06:40.565 --> 06:45.325
putting major public decisions, to something as,

06:45.705 --> 06:47.965
as vulnerable, as fraught as persuasion.

06:47.985 --> 06:50.925
It seems it doesn't seem the best way we should be making

06:50.985 --> 06:55.165
our decisions, but I, I think arson, you know, is right.

06:55.195 --> 06:59.165
That, that if, if, if we don't accept that,

07:00.155 --> 07:02.525
then you're going to have a people

07:03.195 --> 07:06.405
that is constantly feeling like their positions,

07:06.915 --> 07:10.805
even their passions, their prejudices, are,

07:11.345 --> 07:13.045
are being, trampled on.

07:13.275 --> 07:16.685
Well, again, this is a story Americans, like to tell.

07:16.985 --> 07:19.645
Um, I think there, there is some,

07:19.755 --> 07:21.405
some research that backs it up.

07:21.505 --> 07:25.285
But, it, it is a story that you hear here,

07:25.285 --> 07:27.365
which is really a story about the 19th century.

07:27.395 --> 07:30.245
There's a, a great book by Gregory Clark

07:30.265 --> 07:33.045
and Michael Halleran called The Oratorical Culture.

07:33.905 --> 07:36.605
And they argue that the 19th century in the United States,

07:36.615 --> 07:40.805
while Europe was increasingly moving towards a secular,

07:41.265 --> 07:46.085
society towards a, a society, you know, where the, the,

07:46.305 --> 07:47.365
the rise of reason

07:47.425 --> 07:50.605
and science were, were kind of making their mark in,

07:51.145 --> 07:54.685
in politics, that the United States retained this kind

07:54.685 --> 07:58.365
of vibrant and very messy, oratorical culture.

07:58.785 --> 08:03.165
Um, probably attributed first just to the, to the,

08:03.265 --> 08:06.245
the decentralization of our governance structure

08:07.225 --> 08:11.965
and literally this kind of huge space for democracy

08:12.955 --> 08:17.885
that, the, the 19th century United States, allowed

08:17.945 --> 08:19.405
for just the, you know, more

08:19.405 --> 08:22.685
and more places where ordinary people were called

08:22.715 --> 08:24.045
upon to make decisions.

08:25.035 --> 08:27.925
There's also some research to suggest that the

08:28.685 --> 08:31.645
religious revivals in the United States, which really went,

08:31.835 --> 08:33.725
went in some ways longer

08:33.865 --> 08:37.805
and further, than than anywhere else,

08:37.805 --> 08:42.165
that they fomented a very kind of vibrant political culture.

08:42.225 --> 08:44.445
And the one that I've been most interested in is,

08:44.585 --> 08:46.565
is the role of, debate

08:46.785 --> 08:49.845
and, speechmaking in American colleges

08:49.875 --> 08:53.405
that we have tended to retain a place, even

08:53.405 --> 08:56.805
through the 20th century, re re retained a place for kind

08:56.805 --> 08:59.925
of, public speaking, and,

09:00.145 --> 09:02.885
and debate, that, that,

09:02.905 --> 09:05.685
in some ways has withered in,

09:06.265 --> 09:08.765
in academic cultures, elsewhere.

09:08.785 --> 09:11.965
And they, they have attenuated in the United States as well,

09:11.975 --> 09:15.285
which is, which is worrisome, you know, I was,

09:15.345 --> 09:18.525
was just talking about, you know, the,

09:18.665 --> 09:20.125
the ways in which even this kind

09:20.125 --> 09:24.345
of vibrant oratorical culture in the,

09:24.725 --> 09:28.425
in American higher education, you know, has,

09:28.565 --> 09:30.905
has really kind of faced difficulties across the,

09:31.045 --> 09:35.225
the 20th century is as the academy became more specialized,

09:35.645 --> 09:39.225
as, you know, courses, you know, like,

09:39.225 --> 09:42.985
first year composition, first year public speaking,

09:43.015 --> 09:44.545
they, they in some ways kind

09:44.545 --> 09:46.185
of became increasingly marginalized.

09:46.845 --> 09:49.865
Uh, and that's been been worrisome to people like me,

09:50.425 --> 09:54.785
although we have retained this kind of small place, for,

09:55.165 --> 09:58.145
for general instruction in,

09:58.405 --> 10:00.225
in public writing and public speaking.

10:00.765 --> 10:03.625
But I, I think the situation in the, in the schools,

10:03.625 --> 10:05.705
particularly the secondary schools in the United States,

10:05.845 --> 10:09.505
has been what has been most worrisome, to me.

10:10.285 --> 10:13.145
And, and some of it actually comes from higher education.

10:13.205 --> 10:17.705
So I, I I, I try not to in this way, to blame, you know,

10:17.705 --> 10:19.305
secondary, teachers.

10:19.335 --> 10:23.585
This is a, a noble, noble profession and,

10:23.645 --> 10:24.665
and a difficult one.

10:25.085 --> 10:28.865
But I, I've been concerned about the, the kind of loss

10:28.925 --> 10:31.425
of debate, the loss of speech, the loss

10:31.445 --> 10:33.785
of persuasion in the schools.

10:33.965 --> 10:37.465
And, and I, I focus a lot of it on the rise of the,

10:37.465 --> 10:38.625
so-called Common Core.

10:39.365 --> 10:42.345
Um, you know, unlike in, in a lot of European countries,

10:42.345 --> 10:45.625
we have never had a centralized, school curriculum

10:46.205 --> 10:48.425
in this country, as people have always said.

10:48.495 --> 10:53.105
It's literally been up to 15,000 local school districts

10:53.135 --> 10:57.785
with some state level, curriculum that changed

10:57.965 --> 11:02.745
to a degree, around the time of the George, w Bush,

11:03.365 --> 11:05.025
administration

11:05.525 --> 11:08.865
and the, the rise of a, of a national standards movement,

11:09.485 --> 11:13.625
really focused on, on English and math,

11:13.885 --> 11:18.385
and in some ways still had a fairly light touch,

11:18.605 --> 11:20.465
you know, com, compared

11:20.465 --> 11:22.785
to more centralized systems in, in Europe.

11:23.405 --> 11:27.785
But we did for the first time develop a nationwide,

11:28.605 --> 11:31.505
primary and secondary school standards in

11:31.815 --> 11:32.985
English and math.

11:33.565 --> 11:35.145
Uh, and I became alarmed,

11:35.265 --> 11:37.065
a little bit alarmed when I first started

11:37.945 --> 11:39.185
learning about the,

11:39.375 --> 11:42.585
secondary English language, standards.

11:42.685 --> 11:47.665
And these have been voluntarily, endorsed

11:47.805 --> 11:50.065
by the majority of states in the United States.

11:50.175 --> 11:51.465
It's been very controversial,

11:51.725 --> 11:56.325
but there's no question it's had, some influence on,

11:56.325 --> 11:58.525
English language arts, teaching in,

11:58.625 --> 12:00.765
in American, schools.

12:01.425 --> 12:05.805
And, the, the, the part that I became interested in,

12:06.065 --> 12:10.685
partly because I teach future English teachers, so I, I had

12:10.685 --> 12:14.405
to learn about it and had to help them, learn about it.

12:15.025 --> 12:19.085
And I, I started noticing what I thought was a very odd,

12:19.785 --> 12:21.445
to me, binary

12:21.865 --> 12:25.165
and opposition being drawn between persuasion and argument.

12:25.985 --> 12:27.765
And I saw resources

12:27.905 --> 12:31.005
and began hearing teachers,

12:31.105 --> 12:33.445
and even their, their graduates,

12:33.465 --> 12:36.125
the students coming into college,

12:36.275 --> 12:37.925
talking about persuasion

12:38.505 --> 12:40.725
as if it was not a part of argument.

12:41.745 --> 12:44.285
Uh, but that in fact, it was the opposite of argument

12:44.285 --> 12:47.085
that it was, it was a bad thing to do.

12:47.945 --> 12:51.085
Uh, and it was connected with two other binaries

12:51.195 --> 12:52.605
that I started noticing.

12:53.225 --> 12:56.565
Um, and there's been research on both of these, that,

12:56.675 --> 12:58.165
that are parts of our culture,

12:58.745 --> 13:02.005
but that have seeped into the schools, the binary

13:02.035 --> 13:05.715
between fact and opinion, that these are two things

13:05.715 --> 13:08.315
that should never meet, that one of them is good,

13:08.315 --> 13:10.435
and one of them is bad, one of them objective,

13:10.435 --> 13:12.475
and the other subjective,

13:12.915 --> 13:14.035
actually showing up in the schools

13:14.215 --> 13:17.755
and in, in the teaching of, the English language arts.

13:17.815 --> 13:20.435
And the other one was a longstanding binary

13:20.465 --> 13:22.275
between the third and the first person.

13:23.175 --> 13:25.955
So, you know, academic discourse,

13:26.035 --> 13:28.955
public discourse should always be in the, the third person,

13:29.415 --> 13:31.595
the first person is for private discourse.

13:31.825 --> 13:35.515
It's, subjective, problematic, maybe creative writing.

13:36.255 --> 13:40.755
Um, so, so I've been concerned about, about that.

13:40.855 --> 13:42.435
And I don't know what else to do about it,

13:42.455 --> 13:46.555
except I've been trying to write against it, to,

13:46.695 --> 13:49.955
to suggest that, this binary is actually dangerous.

13:50.185 --> 13:52.875
That, it comes from good intentions.

13:53.415 --> 13:56.755
And I think from the same kind of things since 2016 and

13:56.755 --> 13:59.155
before that have worried a lot of people,

13:59.795 --> 14:02.075
I think the schools, in some sense, have over,

14:02.545 --> 14:05.115
they have gone too far in the other direction.

14:05.815 --> 14:09.435
Uh, and the, the common core calls for logical argument

14:09.735 --> 14:12.115
to be taught in the schools and,

14:12.535 --> 14:15.435
and actually critiques, the role

14:15.455 --> 14:19.355
of the first person in argument actually critiques, the,

14:19.375 --> 14:21.835
the role of what Rhetoricians talk about ethos

14:21.935 --> 14:25.915
and pathos, that, that persuasion is,

14:26.375 --> 14:30.235
is never fully contained in logos

14:30.255 --> 14:32.635
or in logical discourse, that that's important,

14:32.775 --> 14:35.875
but never sufficient in political communication.

14:35.875 --> 14:39.595
That you always have the, the role of the speaker themselves

14:39.655 --> 14:42.875
or ethos, and you always have the role of emotions.

14:43.535 --> 14:45.795
Uh, emotions are not a bad thing.

14:46.355 --> 14:48.595
Emotions are the way human beings reason,

14:48.815 --> 14:51.075
and they can be manipulated and misused.

14:51.825 --> 14:54.565
Um, but we can't pretend that they don't exist,

14:54.665 --> 14:56.285
and we can't pretend that they're not part

14:56.285 --> 14:57.765
of political discourse.

14:58.245 --> 15:00.925
I think it's an uphill, I think it's an uphill battle.

15:01.265 --> 15:05.445
And, and again, I'm, you know, the, the, you know, to,

15:05.465 --> 15:07.565
to tell people that our arguments

15:07.905 --> 15:11.445
or our public decisions should be based on facts

15:11.625 --> 15:14.005
and statistics and reason and truth.

15:14.745 --> 15:16.765
Uh, these are hard things to argue against.

15:16.945 --> 15:20.285
And I, and you know, my point is not to argue,

15:20.285 --> 15:23.205
against them, but to suggest that they're insufficient.

15:23.665 --> 15:27.925
Uh, that, that we are, that we are, beings

15:28.005 --> 15:31.605
with bodies that we are, we live in groups,

15:31.995 --> 15:35.365
that we have strong attachments,

15:35.435 --> 15:38.005
that are sometimes referred to as prejudices,

15:38.105 --> 15:39.925
but that are,

15:40.225 --> 15:44.525
are in some ways an in eradicable part, of ourselves.

15:45.105 --> 15:49.885
Um, you know, I, I, I kind of give one example,

15:50.465 --> 15:51.685
based on my research,

15:51.745 --> 15:53.925
as I was looking at the common core, I,

15:54.045 --> 15:58.645
I found a resource online, from, from a teacher,

15:58.645 --> 16:01.965
writing to other teachers about how they could shift

16:02.585 --> 16:06.885
the teaching of, of, public writing

16:06.945 --> 16:08.285
and argument in the schools

16:08.795 --> 16:10.925
away from persuasion to argument.

16:11.665 --> 16:16.285
And this teacher said, using an old, kind of a classic,

16:16.285 --> 16:20.325
writing assignment from the schools, this teacher said,

16:20.475 --> 16:22.925
instead of asking students to write a letter

16:22.925 --> 16:24.125
to their principal

16:25.025 --> 16:27.605
or their, their director of the school, instead

16:27.605 --> 16:30.805
of asking them to write a letter about why recess,

16:31.285 --> 16:34.165
I don't know if you, if you all use that expression, instead

16:34.165 --> 16:37.325
of asking them to, to write a letter about why recess should

16:37.325 --> 16:41.445
be preserved or even expanded, the, this teacher said,

16:41.445 --> 16:45.205
we should be telling students to do research on

16:46.025 --> 16:50.485
recess and then compile, you know, arguments based on

16:50.485 --> 16:52.805
what we have learned about, about research.

16:54.145 --> 16:58.085
And my immediate thought was, why not do both?

16:59.105 --> 17:03.325
Why not, you know, teach students how to do research on,

17:03.425 --> 17:07.805
on recess to understand what we know about, about young,

17:08.095 --> 17:11.245
young children and the need for physical, physical exercise

17:11.265 --> 17:12.685
and breaks during the day?

17:12.865 --> 17:15.645
And, you know, all these things that we've learned about it.

17:15.705 --> 17:18.805
And students should, should learn how to read that kind

17:19.005 --> 17:20.525
of, discourse.

17:20.525 --> 17:23.005
They should learn how to contribute it, contribute,

17:23.225 --> 17:24.365
to it themselves.

17:25.185 --> 17:28.845
Uh, but they should also learn how to, based on

17:28.845 --> 17:31.205
that research, you know, which is never

17:31.965 --> 17:34.205
sufficient in itself, to,

17:34.345 --> 17:37.165
to make controversial public decisions.

17:37.555 --> 17:41.965
They should learn how then to marshal that kind of research,

17:42.665 --> 17:45.605
and then to try to change the world based on it.

17:45.825 --> 17:49.925
And that requires a training in how to be persuasive

17:50.265 --> 17:53.325
and, in attending to one's audience

17:53.465 --> 17:57.045
and thinking about their prejudices, their partisan,

17:57.215 --> 18:00.805
identities, thinking about their emotions,

18:01.025 --> 18:02.805
and realizing that the only way

18:02.805 --> 18:06.925
that we can make these difficult decisions in the world, in,

18:07.345 --> 18:10.805
in self-governing communities is if we,

18:11.505 --> 18:14.725
if we acknowledge the differences that we have,

18:14.825 --> 18:19.085
the different starting points that we have, and that logos

18:19.265 --> 18:21.965
or logic, truth, statistics,

18:21.965 --> 18:23.885
these are not sufficient, for us.

18:23.885 --> 18:28.365
We, we have to learn how to, to, to, to deal

18:28.365 --> 18:31.205
with politics is a much more comprehensive,

18:31.485 --> 18:35.485
a much more enjoyable, and a much more powerful art.

00:00 - You know, I think for Rhetoricians, the, you know, all this can be really traced back to the 2016 US presidential election. I think it was just a shock to so many of us. There was obviously the, the electoral defeat. and even, you know, obviously from a kind

00:17 - of a partisan point of view, this was disappointing for lots of, kind of left-leaning academics. But there was a sense that they, you know, they, they kind of clearly superior set of beliefs, you know, had, had, you know, had, had, was not just contested, but it had actually lost the, the majority vote in large parts of the country. And I think this was kind of, shocking for, for a lot of people and kind of concerning for what that meant for the,

00:49 - the appeal of positions and beliefs that that seemed to be, in some ways so, so dangerous. but I think even worse than that, for a a lot of people, a lot of educators interested in politics and rhetoric was a sense, you know, and I think this, you know, was, was happening across the globe around this time was, was a sense that the very foundations of, of a political communication, had, had collapsed.

01:19 - That there was a sense, perhaps exaggerated, but there was a sense that, it was now impossible even to talk across divides. It wasn't just that, you know, you might lose a debate. it was that you, you could no longer debate. There was a sense that the actual kind of foundations, a kind of a shared sense of reality, had, had been lost. And, I think that was a real kind of shock to, to the system for, for lots of people like me, and people had different kind of solutions

01:51 - for it over the past few years. There's, you know, there a, a, a kind of a raw, political, sense that we just now have to fight it out to the end. And this will be an existential battle. And, you know, one side will, will be eliminated and the other not. But I think, you know, other people have offered, you know, maybe more kind of educational solutions. We need to kind of, teach history better.

02:21 - We need to teach empathy better. And obviously lots of technical solutions having to do with fact checking and, social media and all that. for me, I, I came to realize that, you know, the, the old line, that the only antidote for bad rhetoric was more rhetoric. I, I came to see the kind of truth than that. And I, I actually, in a way, it kind of brought me back to the, the origins of my, of my discipline and persuasion, and a reapp appreciation, for,

02:55 - for persuasion even understanding. It's in incredible, you know, difficulties and, and vulnerabilities. You know, rhetoric is a, is a Greek word, Greek and origin, the, the art of the public speaker, the art of the re, in Athens, kind of meant the art of the politician. it had opponents from the very beginning, the most famous being Plato. but in some ways it, it won the educational battle

03:27 - of antiquity and became really the center as the art of persuasion, kind of the, the center of education, from antiquity up through the European Renaissance. And, had ups and downs. but there was a sense that, persuasion was necessary and you had to train people to do it well, and you had to, to, to also to think carefully about, the dangers of persuasion and how, how a community could, could,

04:01 - could, could, could, you know, could think about those things. the, the kind of classic story is that the enlightenment in Europe becomes a moment, not just that, questions, rhetoric. Rhetoric had always been questioned and, and rightfully so, because it's a, it's a, you know, it's a very fraught, enterprise. But I think, modern philosophers began actually an attempt,

04:29 - explicitly to banish rhetoric from, from philosophy, from the education system. And I, I draw a lot here on, Brian Garten's 2006 book Saving Persuasion, where he really walks through, kind of, foundational modern philosophers, Hobbes, Rousseau Kant, and shows how they attempted to, in some sense, alienate ordinary powers of judgment, to authorities of various kind, whether it was a sovereign person in a, in a king,

05:06 - whether it was a representative body that would make all the decisions for us, or whether in a kind of a conent sense, it was public reason with a capital R, that would, that would, you know, move away from rhetoric, from the passions, from prejudices, from partisanship, and attempt to, to make all decisions based on reason alone. And this is, of course, in some ways, a very attractive, position. you know, I think all of us are, are in some sense,

05:41 - afraid of letting major decisions, you know, left up to, to the people. but I, but Garten, I think is right, that which is that, you know, the, the dangers of the modern philosophical project in some ways are worse than the dangers of, of rhetoric. Certainly from the point of view of democracy. We have to learn, to appreciate persuasion, to carve out the space where it is, it is appropriate,

06:10 - and to, to tame as much as we can, vice that are associated, with it. And, and in some sense that, that I think has been the project of what a lot of people have called the new rhetoric, from the, from the, say mid 20th century, on, and it's been an uphill climb. The, the modern philosophers, you know, in, in some ways we're, we're very persuasive themselves and, and have made us afraid of,

06:40 - putting major public decisions, to something as, as vulnerable, as fraught as persuasion. It seems it doesn't seem the best way we should be making our decisions, but I, I think arson, you know, is right. That, that if, if, if we don't accept that, then you're going to have a people that is constantly feeling like their positions, even their passions, their prejudices, are, are being, trampled on. Well, again, this is a story Americans, like to tell.

07:16 - I think there, there is some, some research that backs it up. But, it, it is a story that you hear here, which is really a story about the 19th century. There's a, a great book by Gregory Clark and Michael Halleran called The Oratorical Culture. And they argue that the 19th century in the United States, while Europe was increasingly moving towards a secular, society towards a, a society, you know, where the, the, the rise of reason

07:47 - and science were, were kind of making their mark in, in politics, that the United States retained this kind of vibrant and very messy, oratorical culture. probably attributed first just to the, to the, the decentralization of our governance structure and literally this kind of huge space for democracy that, the, the 19th century United States, allowed for just the, you know, more and more places where ordinary people were called upon to make decisions.

08:25 - There's also some research to suggest that the religious revivals in the United States, which really went, went in some ways longer and further, than than anywhere else, that they fomented a very kind of vibrant political culture. And the one that I've been most interested in is, is the role of, debate and, speechmaking in American colleges that we have tended to retain a place, even through the 20th century, re re retained a place for kind

08:56 - of, public speaking, and, and debate, that, that, in some ways has withered in, in academic cultures, elsewhere. And they, they have attenuated in the United States as well, which is, which is worrisome, you know, I was, was just talking about, you know, the, the ways in which even this kind of vibrant oratorical culture in the, in American higher education, you know, has,

09:28 - has really kind of faced difficulties across the, the 20th century is as the academy became more specialized, as, you know, courses, you know, like, first year composition, first year public speaking, they, they in some ways kind of became increasingly marginalized. and that's been been worrisome to people like me, although we have retained this kind of small place, for, for general instruction in, in public writing and public speaking.

10:00 - But I, I think the situation in the, in the schools, particularly the secondary schools in the United States, has been what has been most worrisome, to me. And, and some of it actually comes from higher education. So I, I I, I try not to in this way, to blame, you know, secondary, teachers. This is a, a noble, noble profession and, and a difficult one. But I, I've been concerned about the, the kind of loss of debate, the loss of speech, the loss

10:31 - of persuasion in the schools. And, and I, I focus a lot of it on the rise of the, so-called Common Core. you know, unlike in, in a lot of European countries, we have never had a centralized, school curriculum in this country, as people have always said. It's literally been up to 15,000 local school districts with some state level, curriculum that changed to a degree, around the time of the George, w Bush, administration

11:05 - and the, the rise of a, of a national standards movement, really focused on, on English and math, and in some ways still had a fairly light touch, you know, com, compared to more centralized systems in, in Europe. But we did for the first time develop a nationwide, primary and secondary school standards in English and math. and I became alarmed, a little bit alarmed when I first started

11:37 - learning about the, secondary English language, standards. And these have been voluntarily, endorsed by the majority of states in the United States. It's been very controversial, but there's no question it's had, some influence on, English language arts, teaching in, in American, schools. And, the, the, the part that I became interested in, partly because I teach future English teachers, so I, I had

12:10 - to learn about it and had to help them, learn about it. And I, I started noticing what I thought was a very odd, to me, binary and opposition being drawn between persuasion and argument. And I saw resources and began hearing teachers, and even their, their graduates, the students coming into college, talking about persuasion as if it was not a part of argument.

12:41 - but that in fact, it was the opposite of argument that it was, it was a bad thing to do. and it was connected with two other binaries that I started noticing. and there's been research on both of these, that, that are parts of our culture, but that have seeped into the schools, the binary between fact and opinion, that these are two things that should never meet, that one of them is good, and one of them is bad, one of them objective,

13:10 - and the other subjective, actually showing up in the schools and in, in the teaching of, the English language arts. And the other one was a longstanding binary between the third and the first person. So, you know, academic discourse, public discourse should always be in the, the third person, the first person is for private discourse. It's, subjective, problematic, maybe creative writing. so, so I've been concerned about, about that.

13:40 - And I don't know what else to do about it, except I've been trying to write against it, to, to suggest that, this binary is actually dangerous. That, it comes from good intentions. And I think from the same kind of things since 2016 and before that have worried a lot of people, I think the schools, in some sense, have over, they have gone too far in the other direction. and the, the common core calls for logical argument to be taught in the schools and,

14:12 - and actually critiques, the role of the first person in argument actually critiques, the, the role of what Rhetoricians talk about ethos and pathos, that, that persuasion is, is never fully contained in logos or in logical discourse, that that's important, but never sufficient in political communication. That you always have the, the role of the speaker themselves or ethos, and you always have the role of emotions. emotions are not a bad thing.

14:46 - Emotions are the way human beings reason, and they can be manipulated and misused. but we can't pretend that they don't exist, and we can't pretend that they're not part of political discourse. I think it's an uphill, I think it's an uphill battle. And, and again, I'm, you know, the, the, you know, to, to tell people that our arguments or our public decisions should be based on facts and statistics and reason and truth.

15:14 - these are hard things to argue against. And I, and you know, my point is not to argue, against them, but to suggest that they're insufficient. that, that we are, that we are, beings with bodies that we are, we live in groups, that we have strong attachments, that are sometimes referred to as prejudices, but that are, are in some ways an in eradicable part, of ourselves. you know, I, I, I kind of give one example,

15:50 - based on my research, as I was looking at the common core, I, I found a resource online, from, from a teacher, writing to other teachers about how they could shift the teaching of, of, public writing and argument in the schools away from persuasion to argument. And this teacher said, using an old, kind of a classic, writing assignment from the schools, this teacher said, instead of asking students to write a letter

16:22 - to their principal or their, their director of the school, instead of asking them to write a letter about why recess, I don't know if you, if you all use that expression, instead of asking them to, to write a letter about why recess should be preserved or even expanded, the, this teacher said, we should be telling students to do research on recess and then compile, you know, arguments based on what we have learned about, about research. And my immediate thought was, why not do both?

16:59 - Why not, you know, teach students how to do research on, on recess to understand what we know about, about young, young children and the need for physical, physical exercise and breaks during the day? And, you know, all these things that we've learned about it. And students should, should learn how to read that kind of, discourse. They should learn how to contribute it, contribute, to it themselves. but they should also learn how to, based on

17:28 - that research, you know, which is never sufficient in itself, to, to make controversial public decisions. They should learn how then to marshal that kind of research, and then to try to change the world based on it. And that requires a training in how to be persuasive and, in attending to one's audience and thinking about their prejudices, their partisan, identities, thinking about their emotions, and realizing that the only way

18:02 - that we can make these difficult decisions in the world, in, in self-governing communities is if we, if we acknowledge the differences that we have, the different starting points that we have, and that logos or logic, truth, statistics, these are not sufficient, for us. We, we have to learn how to, to, to, to deal with politics is a much more comprehensive, a much more enjoyable, and a much more powerful art.

Faculti AI can make mistakes