As a scholar of argumentation and rhetoric who focuses on issue campaigns it seems appropriate to think about the metaphor Argument as Issue Campaign. As mentioned in a previous post metaphors allow new conceptual constructions and understandings. Thus, argument as its own construct becomes something new and different within the metaphor Argument as Issue Campaign.
Arguments are typically understood, within Toulmin's framework, as ways "of presenting conclusions that have been discovered prior to the argument" (Kastely, 1999, p. 227). Unfortunately, this typical practice of argument doesn't always acknowledge contradictions and can lock oneself into a system of explanation that is impervious to criticism (Kastely, 1999). But, this is not the only understanding of argument, there are many. One other way to understand argument is through deliberative and/or dialectical argument. Both are centered around a more collaborative understanding of argument that is interested in the other members of argument and debate as well as their ideas and contribution to the topic at hand. It is not based in a win/lose binary, but more associated with both/and thinking that requires vulnerability to the idea of being influenced and shifting of thoughts, as well as finding commonalities that can lead to cooperative solutions and/or paths (Kastely, 1999).
Issue campaigns, are campaigns that deal with issues, such as: policy issues and ballot initiatives. These campaigns are typically performed at many different sites, for example: in policy rhetoric, in political ads, speech rally's, protest rally's, on the bodies of those engaged in the campaign(s), in press releases, on websites, in canvassing efforts, in PR, etc etc.
After a quick review of what is argument and what is issue campaign we can begin the exploration of the metaphor Argument as Issue Campaign. To think of Argument as Issue Campaign invites us to expand our conception of each individual construct and think of them as a combination, in relationship, as a new idea and understanding, as a new mode of perception (Blumenberg, 1960), and as a mode of thought (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
This metaphor invites us to think argument as not only a verbal speech act, but also as something nonverbal, and even visual, marked on bodies, disseminated to masses, interpersonal canvassing, fundraising, as lies, misinformation, fact based claims, value based claims, policy based claims, organizing, viral, technology, statist, punditry, satire, and parody....just to name a few.
Although this is a preliminary inquiry into Argument as Issue Campaign I hope that it will spawn some ideas about how to think of argument as a metaphor, how to think of this particular metaphor, and how to think of argument differently. I invite you to marinate on this with me for awhile, so that when I return we can add more to this. Additionally, I want to think of this metaphor through a rhetorical case study of the Wisconsin Union Issue Campaigns (for and against WI unions rights to collective bargaining). Thoughts?
Blumenberg, H. (1960). Paradigmen zu einer meaphorologie.
Kastely, J. L. (1999). From formalism to inquiry: A model of argument in Antigone. College English, 62(2).
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Wisconsin Republicans Passed Bill Without Democrats
Tonight Wisconsin republicans passed legislation without the democrats.
Footage of the evening, available online and which has been circulating on the media, shows our democracy in crisis (1). In a state that was part of the birth of the labor movement (2), legislation has been passed that not only strips pubic unions of their bargaining rights (3), but the way it was passed should be a wake up call (you know, just in case you have been pushing snooze).
I talk about politics all the time, and I can have lots of different opinions on a lot of different things. But I will say here, what I have said before: One of the things I love about our country and our political values is debate.
The chance to allow competing voices to be heard…it is a beautiful thing.
What I see in this video should wake us up. And when I say us- I am suggesting people who care about the practices of debate and dialogue in our political system.
1- The Joint Committee on Conference met on March 9, 2011 at the state Capitol. The Republicans approved to adopt a revised budget repair bill, Special Session Assembly Bill 11. http://wiseye.org/Programming/VideoArchive/EventDetail.aspx?evhdid=3885
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Labor Rights Debate in Wisconsin- Collection of related texts
Wisconsin on my brain
Recently revolutions and protests have been filling the airwaves, from Egypt, to Libya, to the United States. Wisconsin has recently (but not for the first time) popped up as being a center for the labor rights debate that has begun, and will continue to spill over across the nation. Unfortunately, as we are seeing the GOP is launching an assault on labor unions, workers rights, and other areas such as women's rights and reproductive rights. Although I will be doing some work on these latter issues, I will focus this particular post on what is going on with the issue of labor rights and unions.
Last night I was watching the Daily Show (1), and his whole first segment was focused on Walker, the protests, and an interview (or hoax interview) that Walker participated in yesterday. Just in case you haven't heard, Walker took a phone call and thought he was speaking to David Koch (a major financial backer of Republican candidates and issues (6) NATIONWIDE)
when in reality he was speaking with reporter Murphy from the blog buffalobeast (3).
This interview between Murphy & Walker (3), when juxtaposed to Walkers recent press statements (2), the Club for Growth Wisconsin, Inc television ad (4), the Americans for Prosperity TV ad (5), and the policy and financial policy that Walker is proposing, shows that there is an attack going on against unions, supporters (including the demcratic representatives), and democratic party values. The attack(s) may be understood collectively as a side to a debate; a sequence of arguments and rhetoric that aim to promote GOP interests, and to negate union interests.
On the other side of the debate we have a recent ad (7) sponsored by Wisconsin AFL-CIO, we have the protests (8), the democratic leaders who have left their states in protest (9), as well as some remarks by Obama (10) stating that what is going on is an assault on unions. Overall, this side of the debate is against Walkers proposal, specifically this side of the debate is against the push to end collective bargaining rights for unions.
Although this a preliminary list of texts that are contributing to larger narratives on each side of this debate, it is clear that there are campaigns on either side to promote the issues that they wish to make salient to the public and that they want to influence public policy. Such rhetoric is worthy of attention and it is my hope to be able to look at these texts to better understand how they function within the debate for and against collective bargaining rights for unions. What strikes me as interesting is the different ways each side seems to be engaging the debate. For example, from the hoax interview we can see that there are some interesting tactics being explored in an effort to end collective bargaining rights- such as infiltrating the protesters and using deceit with Democratic leaders to get what they want. Are these tactics exemplary of popular American debate, argumentation, and rhetorical practices? As someone who has worked on campaigns in the past, I can say that these tactics do happen, but are they dominant forms of practice? Or are they examples of arguing differently? Additionally, how is this interview, an act in itself, performative of arguing differently? Additionally, the efforts by Democratic leaders who have left their representative states in protest- are these examples of arguing differently?
I will return to this blog later, but for now- what do you think about this debate? What other texts should I include for possible analysis? What about all these texts, and each side of the debate do you think are exemplary of traditional American rhetoric and debate, and what about them are not?
1- http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-february-23-2011-donald-rumsfeld
2-http://online.wsj.com/video/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-on-protests/3ACE429A-1DED-41EC-8AD6-0C62F3F8FF48.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
3- http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045
4-http://wispolitics.com/1006/110211_WCFG_Benefits_TV.mov
5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adX6C01X9TU
6- http://www.truth-out.org/koch-industries-front-group-americans-for-prosperity-launches-ad-to-support-walkers-union-busting67
7- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/first_look_national_unions_lau.html
8- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-protests-_n_826246.html
9-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/25states.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
10- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-on-wisconsin-budget-protests-an-assault-on-workers.html
Recently revolutions and protests have been filling the airwaves, from Egypt, to Libya, to the United States. Wisconsin has recently (but not for the first time) popped up as being a center for the labor rights debate that has begun, and will continue to spill over across the nation. Unfortunately, as we are seeing the GOP is launching an assault on labor unions, workers rights, and other areas such as women's rights and reproductive rights. Although I will be doing some work on these latter issues, I will focus this particular post on what is going on with the issue of labor rights and unions.
Last night I was watching the Daily Show (1), and his whole first segment was focused on Walker, the protests, and an interview (or hoax interview) that Walker participated in yesterday. Just in case you haven't heard, Walker took a phone call and thought he was speaking to David Koch (a major financial backer of Republican candidates and issues (6) NATIONWIDE)
when in reality he was speaking with reporter Murphy from the blog buffalobeast (3).
This interview between Murphy & Walker (3), when juxtaposed to Walkers recent press statements (2), the Club for Growth Wisconsin, Inc television ad (4), the Americans for Prosperity TV ad (5), and the policy and financial policy that Walker is proposing, shows that there is an attack going on against unions, supporters (including the demcratic representatives), and democratic party values. The attack(s) may be understood collectively as a side to a debate; a sequence of arguments and rhetoric that aim to promote GOP interests, and to negate union interests.
On the other side of the debate we have a recent ad (7) sponsored by Wisconsin AFL-CIO, we have the protests (8), the democratic leaders who have left their states in protest (9), as well as some remarks by Obama (10) stating that what is going on is an assault on unions. Overall, this side of the debate is against Walkers proposal, specifically this side of the debate is against the push to end collective bargaining rights for unions.
Although this a preliminary list of texts that are contributing to larger narratives on each side of this debate, it is clear that there are campaigns on either side to promote the issues that they wish to make salient to the public and that they want to influence public policy. Such rhetoric is worthy of attention and it is my hope to be able to look at these texts to better understand how they function within the debate for and against collective bargaining rights for unions. What strikes me as interesting is the different ways each side seems to be engaging the debate. For example, from the hoax interview we can see that there are some interesting tactics being explored in an effort to end collective bargaining rights- such as infiltrating the protesters and using deceit with Democratic leaders to get what they want. Are these tactics exemplary of popular American debate, argumentation, and rhetorical practices? As someone who has worked on campaigns in the past, I can say that these tactics do happen, but are they dominant forms of practice? Or are they examples of arguing differently? Additionally, how is this interview, an act in itself, performative of arguing differently? Additionally, the efforts by Democratic leaders who have left their representative states in protest- are these examples of arguing differently?
I will return to this blog later, but for now- what do you think about this debate? What other texts should I include for possible analysis? What about all these texts, and each side of the debate do you think are exemplary of traditional American rhetoric and debate, and what about them are not?
1- http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-february-23-2011-donald-rumsfeld
2-http://online.wsj.com/video/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-on-protests/3ACE429A-1DED-41EC-8AD6-0C62F3F8FF48.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
3- http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045
4-http://wispolitics.com/1006/110211_WCFG_Benefits_TV.mov
5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adX6C01X9TU
6- http://www.truth-out.org/koch-industries-front-group-americans-for-prosperity-launches-ad-to-support-walkers-union-busting67
7- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/first_look_national_unions_lau.html
8- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-protests-_n_826246.html
9-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/25states.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
10- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-on-wisconsin-budget-protests-an-assault-on-workers.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
