User:Teamjake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Pro-War Rhetoric
Rhetorical genre is known to be recurrent form of discourse. Genres are credible common themes found within mass communications. Pro-war rhetoric is any type of literature or media that tries to gain support for war effort. We studied pro-war rhetoric in order to find commonalities among different cultures. The two main analytical approaches were founded by Ronald Reid and Robert Ivie. Until their analysis of pro-war propaganda there were no analytical frameworks to persuade an audience to support war efforts. Ronald Reid created his framework based on common themes he found throughout historical documents and Robert Ivie based his framework on Kenneth Burke’s idea of “dramatism.”
[edit] Ronald Reid's Rhetorical Framework
- Territorial Appeal
- "The following analysis, however, pesupposes that humans tend to regard certain units of physical space as "theirs," that they will fight when, "their" territory is invaded and that they will fight even harder when they feel that the "center" of their territory is endangered."
- Ethnocentric Appeal
- "An individual belongs to a culture; and if he finds security and identity within it, he is likely to view it, not simply as different from, but as superior to, other cultures."
- Maintaining Optimism
- Optimism is an illusion of victory. In order to continue supporting a war people need to feel as though their efforts are worth while.
[edit] Robert Ivie's Rhetorical Framework
- Force vs. Freedom
- “Adversaries are portrayed as unspeaking brutes who know no respect for human liberty. They would force all others to conform to their will and / or ideology. They symbolize the perfect enemy of freedom.”
- Rational vs. Irrational
- "Thus images of savagery are replete with references to an antagonist driven by appetites rather than guided by principles of civilized humanity. Along with the contrast between the aggressor's coerciveness and the victim's devotion to freedom, this second dimension in the theme of the enemy's culpability produces a composite image of bullying brute whose irrational drives must be satiated even at the expense of international law."
- Aggression vs. Defense
- "the sense of the enemy’s action has been conveyed as voluntary and initial and contrasted with a reaction that was involuntary and defensive."
[edit] Reid Vs. Ivie
Both Reid and Ivie’s framework are very closely correlated. Both frameworks identify an ethnocentric appeal of persuasion. Both agree that in order to create an enemy you have to define them as everything that you are not, basically dehumanizing the aggressor and their actions. Also both agree that there is a difference between who is the cause of the conflict. For example with Reid describes this in his territorial appeal, our land has been threatened or they are trying to destroy democracy. Ivie agrees with his aggression vs. defense premises. If someone is attacking the U.S. territory we have no other choice but to take action. We are not the invaders or instigators, but we are the defenders and helpers in time of invasion. Reid and Ivie differ in their pro-war framework slightly though. Reid presents the appeal of maintaining optimism in order to keep the audience believing in the argument, where as Ivie does not mention in his framework.
[edit] References
- Robert L. Ivie, "Images of Savagery in American Justifications for War," Communication Monographs 47 (1980): 279-294.
- Ronald F. Reid, "New England Rhetoric And the French War, 1754-1760: A Case Study In the Rhetoric of War," Communication Monographas 43 (1976): 259-286.
