Arguing Through Fiction

Fiction can be used as a form of public argument that is just as affective as nonfiction. Usually when I’m reading a work of fiction I don’t think about the message the author is trying to tell me or that he’s advancing an argument at all. However one of the main reasons why authors write fiction is to make an argument, whether readers know it or not. Overall the genre has many advantages for someone trying to make an argument. It gives the writer complete control over what to include in her argument and lets her create any story she wants to support it. With nonfiction writers don’t have this kind of freedom. Nonfiction requires the writer to report facts and analyze them objectively. She is faced with the dilemma of choosing what to report and how to report it while trying to give her own opinion on the situation(s). Fiction removes these obstacles and allows the writer to make up any story she wants without fear of misrepresenting any factual events.

Fiction also lets writers advance opinions within contexts that they are familiar with. For example in “Invisible Man”, Ralph Ellison makes arguments about identity, power, and democracy using a character that he would understand well: a young black male living in the American south and New York during the 1920s and 30s. Many writers create characters that are reflections of themselves, which emphasizes the fact that they are speaking directly to their audience.

Fiction also exposes readers to arguments through characters they can identify with. People enjoy reading about characters that they have some things in common with, which is not always the case with nonfiction. In the readers’ minds the characters are more believable when they share traits with actual people. However, one of the drawbacks of fiction is that the characters may not seem “real” enough to the audience and any arguments the author is trying to make get ignored.

I think fiction is an excellent medium for public argument. It has advantages for both writers and readers who can advance and learn about issues that affect their real lives. The writer can create any type of story she wants to deliver her arguments without the restraints that are present in nonfiction writing.

Democracy, Identity, Power and the Invisible Man

The use of a fiction novel to advance an argument is not something that I typically consider a form of argument. However, after our discussions in class, I have realized the profound impacts that a fiction novel can create. This is achieved through the characters and situations that they are faced with. The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison presents many interesting arguments through its characters. Although this novel has many different arguments I would like to comment and give examples of the three main ones we focused on in class which include: democracy, identity and power.

The book gives the impression that democracy as we know it is a charade. Ideally democracy includes such rights as: freedom of speech, the right to vote, and freedom of religion. These among many make up a true democracy that is a governed by the people. The freedom of speech is definitely undermined in this book, due to the restrictions that are put on the Invisible man in his work as an orator. If the Brotherhood represents the state and is promoting speeches toward equality, yet still placing limitations on the type of speech allowed, is a problem. At first the Brotherhood provides a sense that speech really is free, by allowing the Invisible man deliver speeches that worked toward the goals of equality among all races. However, after the Invisible man started to deviate from their standards for the definition of equality the Brotherhood put more restrictions on him. They said that he had to learn to speak more scientifically. As reader however, we are never told exactly what the meaning of speaking scientifically is. This censorship from the Brotherhood represents what the government of the 20’s and 30’did; they preached the ideals of free speech and the future of equality, but only to a certain extent. Therefore the limitations placed on the Invisible man by the brotherhood are an example of how democracy is only true on the surface level. Likewise, just like democracy on the outside the Brotherhood promotes equality, but doesn’t actually mean it or want it. As soon as a minority group tries to equate with the majority they are stopped. The Brotherhood and democratic states want equality to the extent that suits them. Not so much in today’s society as that in the 1920’s through the 1960s. Although in the 20’s African Americans were not considered equal, the government tried to include the minority by allowing them to vote and participate in other civic duties. This right was clearly challenged by the final act of civil disobedience by the Invisible man. If a person can gain these civil rights, yet still be invisible it the eyes of the democratic rulers than by stealing electricity and living beyond the democratic society he has demonstrated that the idea of democracy is not pure.

This idea of democracy directly relates to the idea of identity. The same way that democracy puts up a front, identity is also something that is not real, but instead is placed on a person by the society in which they take part in. Identity is something that is multiple and continuously changing. This is best demonstrated by the Invisible man, but is also shown through other secondary characters in the novel. The most dramatic is the character of Reinhart. He has many different identities that change from one setting to the next. As the Invisible man finds out, Reinhart is a trouble maker, preacher, number runner, lover and much more. The multitude of identities also represents the changing identities that are defined by the people within a society. Another character that shows not only a large number of identities, but also the society’s imposition of those identities is Tod Clifton. When we first meet him, the reader gets the sense that he is a young intelligent activist that is held high in the eyes of the Brotherhood. However, we also see the identity that is placed on him by Ras the exhorter. To Ras, Tod and the rest of the Brotherhood are traitors, which is originally in direct contrast with that of the Brotherhood. However, after Tod leaves the Brotherhood and starts selling the dolls, the identity placed on him by the Brotherhood become more alight with that of Ras. Overally, both Reinhart and Tod Clifton show the argument of this book. The characters are shaped by society and their identities are a reflection of the company that is kept. Although these are smaller characters of the book, the main characters are given identities as well. The Invisible man is given an identity from the very beginning, firstly from his grandfather, then by the principal, then by Bledsoe, and then by Brother Jack and so on. However, it was not until the Invisible man removes himself from the society that gave him his identities that he creates his own version of identity. At this moment he creates for the first time his own sense of power. The identity he creates still is a reflection of the past, holding to the argument that identity is socially constructed.

Power is something that also shapes one’s identity, as the book implies, but power also underlies the foundations of democracy. There has to be someone that ultimately makes decisions and through democracy everyone has the ability to gain power. But also, democracy lays the foundations for wanting more power. The character Bedsoe most directly relates to the idea of power, and the struggle to always gain more. The main argument of the book is that power leads to an identity that is power hungry, manipulative and deviant. Bledsoe always wanted power and he worked very hard to achieve it, and he would do anything not to lose it. The search for power in the novel runs with every character. Every person wanted to be able to have more power than others; from Brother Jack to Lucius from Optic paints. Power thus is a very important aspect to any society and the amount of power and the people in power tend to shape the identities of the subordinate.

Overall, the arguments of this book are very strong and are demonstrated through many different characters and situations that the Invisible man encounters. Power, identity, and democracy have different meanings across societies and cultures. The book shows the interconnectivity of the three and the changing characteristics of each. I feel that identity is the strongest message that is pushed forward by this book. There is a lot of pistis for the idea that identity is socially constructed. The book uses this sense of identity to push the abstract ideas of democracy and power toward the final argument that societies are impure and most judgments are based on ever-changing norms and public ideas, whether they are wrong or not.

Persuasion isn't dead

When Matt Miller wrote his article asking if persuasion was dead, the country was in a very different political climate than the one we are in today. The nation was divided over many issues and that was emphasized in the 2004 presidential election. It seemed like no one could be convinced to believe anything opposite of what he or she already thought and it wound up being a very close race. However, in order to persuade, someone has to be persuasive to begin with and that’s where both presidential candidates failed. Neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush were very persuasive themselves during the campaign. Bush had the reputation of being a terrible speaker and Kerry wasn’t a strong one either, so it was the people around them and their parties stood for shaped public opinion about them. Yet even in that election persuasion wasn’t completely dead. A group outside of any political party called the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was able to convince a substantial amount of Americans that Kerry wouldn’t be able to lead as president. Whether the evidence the group had was verifiable or not it did succeed in persuading where the candidates could not.

But with the next election the candidates did the persuading because they didn’t have a choice. Both Barack Obama and John McCain started out their campaigns with very little support and had to work convince not only the American people but members of their own parties to support them. Obama proved to be the more persuasive of the two for example by reaching out to a wider audience via the Internet. One of McCain’s persuasive tactics was to attack Obama based on a weak acquaintance with a former domestic terrorist, but this didn’t work. Ultimately it was the more persuasive candidate that convinced the most people.

Overall, the ability to persuade is largely up to the speaker himself. Some people can present a weak argument so affectively that even if the evidence isn’t true many people can be convinced of that person’s point. Persuasion definitely isn’t dead, it’s just that we don’t always hear the important arguments delivered by persuasive people.

The New Face of Persuasion

During winter break, I went a short road-trip with some friends, and along the way we talked about everything from the latest gossip to current affairs. All four of us share similar views, so at first the conversation went off without any glitches, until the subject of the Middle East came up. A friend of mine and I had a different opinion about the role of Iran in the past decades. The battle seemed endless, with neither of us making concessions, until one of the other guys interrupted us and told us to stop. Although I was happy the conversation was over, I was curious as to why my friend stopped our conversation. He told us that whenever discussions of the Middle East came up, he is immediately annoyed. When I asked him why, he preceded to tell us that it didn’t matter which side was right, because no one was going to give any concessions. He was right, as our conversation had gotten nowhere in the last twenty minutes. Neither of us even entertained the notion that the other could be right. Thus, even though we were trying to persuade each other on our view, it wasn’t going to happen. Although this represents a time when persuasion cannot flourish, I do not think persuasion is dead. Instead, the dominate form of persuasion has changed, and the pure persuasion has become more difficult. The difficulty of persuasion has increased exponentially because of the tendency to surround ourselves with like-minded people and our social behavior.

The people we chose to surround ourselves with tend to have the same beliefs and opinions. From the beginning of our lives we are taught different attitudes from parents, teachers and our communities. In many cases, where we grow up has a profound influence on our future beliefs. These beliefs that are installed at a young age may change as we get older, but then so do the people we surround ourselves with. It may no longer be parents and teachers influencing our every move, but instead it is the media we watch, people we spend our time with, and even where we go to school. All of these groups tend to coincide with our beliefs. For example, many people that choose to come to Madison come for the liberal atmosphere it provides. But the people that are attracted to the liberal aspect, most likely will be liberal. I am not saying that everyone shares the exact same opinions on every subject, but it is probable that there will be some common ground. So even in an institution that is supposed to provide an atmosphere for persuasion, there is no need for persuasion. Likewise, a person who considers themselves to be democratic or liberal is probably not going to be listening to a Republican talk show, and if they do it is more of a joke. Instead people are going to listen to the media sources that most agree with their own beliefs. Even if persuasion is attempted it will be much more difficult. When an outsider tries to persuade a group of like-minded people, the second group has the upper hand. They are not going to be persuaded because there are many other people that will back their up the opinion in question. Even though this is the norm, there is a possibility that someone in the audience will be persuaded to switch their views, but this is not all that common.

This inability of one group to persuade the other, gives rise to the new prominent form of persuasion. Instead of persuasion as a means to join a particular side, persuasion is used as a means to call or rally a group to action. The most prominent example of this is in presidential debates. Instead of the candidates trying to appeal to both sides, they are just going to appeal to the people that are already behind them. Going into debates, it is as if there is no need for them to persuade, instead they want the people to make sure they vote and rally for them. Therefore, persuasion is not dead; it has just changed its form.

I have to say that this ad doesn’t appeal to me at all, which is exactly what Nike wanted. It has a target audience and I’m not in it. To me it’s boring and really doesn’t capture my attention since I’m not a runner and not in the market to buy running shoes any time soon. If I saw it in a magazine I’d probably glance over it and turn the page without giving it a second thought. The fact that I could never run long distance probably has a lot to do with how I feel about running in general. Getting people who aren’t in the target audience to largely ignore the ad and not get upset, offended, or confused by it is a good marketing strategy. It allows the company to say exactly what it wants to say directly to its target audience.

The product is designed for runners but the audience for this ad is narrower. The target audience seems to be current costumers who have bought running shoes from Nike before. The phrase “old and the same” is used because Nike wants its current (and satisfied) customers to know that this shoe has whatever they liked about Nike’s other shoes. “New and improved” reassures them that this shoe is better than what they made before and it also convinces them that they should buy it.

The juxtaposition of words that are the opposite of each other (new and old, improved and the same) is a play on the idea that people like what they have and don’t want to change (or buy something else), yet always want something new and better. This appeals to all of the potential buyers Nike is targeting. I’m probably not the best judge of what a runner likes or wants in a shoe, but this ad seems like the target audience would like it.

Darn those Burger Munching Cellphone Talking Drivers!

Print advertisements are the most unreliable forms of public argument. An advertising company has to be able to create an entire appeal to a perspective buyer within the flip of a page. To make matters worse, advertisements are inconvenient for the reader; they interrupt articles, and there are too many of them. Consequently, it is very difficult to create an advertisement that creates a solid argument based on ethos, pathos and logos. Many advertisers are forced to rely heavily on emotional appeals to draw the reader’s attention and then in smaller print, add the logistics. The advertisement that we chose does not stray from this idea.

At first glance, this ad had a pathetic appeal in the form of confusion and humor. My eyes were not drawn to the bracelet in the corner or the large runner to the left, but instead the large warning sign off in the distance. I read it and wondered what was meant by “Burger munching cell phone talking driver one mile ahead.” Clearly, I am not part of the target audience for this advertisement, as I could be classified as such. In reality, there is a large majority of people that could fit into this category. Still, it is interesting to note that it is easy to distinguish who the target audience is, and where this ad might be from, just from first glance. Without ever seeing the magazine of origin, I can deduce that it is from a fitness magazine; otherwise RoadID would not have separated the runner from the burger munchers. My confusion came from the meaning of the sign, but my confusion gave rise to humor. It is just bizarre to make a reference like this. Also, it is not very often that people are called, “Burger munching cell phone talking drivers.”

Aside from the humor, this sign does not seem to be logical in context of this particular runner. Even after taking the whole advertisement into perspective, I am still confused as to what the actual warning that this sign is supposed to yield. The RoadID is supposed to identify the runner in case of an accident, which is logical, considering most runners do not carry a wallet or have their name tattooed to his/her body, but I still didn’t see the value of this warning. The runner is on a seemingly deserted road in the middle of nowhere, running to who knows where. My first thought was that this runner might pass out from heat stroke or dehydration and then the driver would have to report the accident. In that case the sign is calling the person who is supposed to help the runner, lazy or irresponsible. Later, I realized another potential reason for the warning; that the runner is going to be hit by the driver. Still the reasoning for the sign is invalid. There are other ways to prevent being hit by the supposed irresponsible driver. Perhaps the runner doesn’t need to run down the middle of the road or maybe after seeing the car, the runner could move aside. It seems simple, but the advertisement argues that it is important by adding, “RoadID…because these signs don’t exist.” I immediately felt further alienated, yet could not help but laugh, because again this warning sign is pointless. The entire advertisement is a hyperbole. I do not see why anyone would need a sign for this. Nonetheless, I wanted to see if the information at the bottom of the page could give me any insight into the reason for the RoadID.

The paragraph is filled with rhetoric; however it is seemingly unsuccessful as a means of persuasion. RoadID attempts to add some logistics to their advertisement, the only problem is they don’t have any sound evidence in support of the RoadID. Instead, the ad uses vague terms to describe the necessity of the RoadID, such as: “Each year, runners who thought it would never happen to them end up in the hospital as a John or Jane Doe (…).” This statement really tells the reader nothing, it is important to have statistical data for how many people actually end up in the hospital each year. I do not have any reason to believe that there are a lot of runners that have ended up in the hospital. The lack of statistics makes me doubt the exigence for this specific kairos. It seems to me that there is little motivation to promote the RoadID. The whole situation seems infeasible; I know plenty of people that fun without needing their id. The ad also uses exaggerated terms in the form of this hyperbole; “The most important piece of running gear that you’ll ever own.” Somehow I have a hard time believing this to be true. There are some core elements a runner needs, before he can even think about getting in an accident. Continuing on, the advertisement does not give anymore hard evidence or details about the RoadID other than that it is “Comfortable.” There are only more emotional appeals, in a sense trying to create a sense of distress. As if to try and get the reader to think, “What if this happens to me?” This is summed up in the last sentence. When the ad uses a paronomasia, “It’s not just a piece of gear, it’s a piece of mind.” This advertising company used emotional appeals, to try and make their audience feel a need for this product.

Personally, I don’t think that the ad succeeded. This is most likely because I am not part of this ad’s demographic. Perhaps runners have felt a need for such an important asset to running, I however have not. The ad relies too heavily on emotional appeals. I would expect to see more logistical data to support the claim that this product is needed, and I that it would enhance any argument made for the RoadID.

Establishing Credible Ethos

Although I do believe that Aristotle’s quote that ethos, “should result from the speech not from a previous opinion” is based on sound reasoning, it seems impossible for today’s society. Our technology driven society seems to be more concerned with the intricate details of the person’s life rather than what the person is saying in a certain rhetoric moment. Our current age of technology supports the need for us to know every detail regarding the speaker’s life. Due to this, I think that a person’s reputation supersedes their speech or their opinion on a particular topic. A particular speaker could deliver the most eloquent and exigent speech ever, but there is bound to be some bias toward the speech, that effects the outcome of the message received. Aside from my observations of our society, I think that there is a time and a place for the inclusion of reputation.

In general, there are some circumstances where reputation should be taken into account, and other’s where I think that it is important to forget the past. The reputation of a speaker can really harm the result of the speech. In certain situations, the speaker could actually have important contributions to help advance a particular argument, even if he/she had been deemed unreliable or untrustworthy in the past. I am definitely not one to criticize, as I have judged someone based on previous opinions, before actually listening to what they had to say. I think the most recent evidence of this is with the former president, George W. Bush. Looking back at my previous judgments, it seems important to discount his reputation and listen to his speeches without any bias. The past president has a bad reputation with many citizens of this country, most frequently based on the decisions he made during his presidency. Apart from his actual decisions, his speeches also added to the bias of listeners including myself. I have listened to some of the speeches from George W. Bush, and his constant use of fillers and terrible use of language, annoyed me enough, that I stopped tuning in to hear him speak. Nevertheless, he is the most well-known person in America and possibly the world, and I should have listened to him. Obviously, he held the power to make important decisions for the future, and I should have ignored my biases to hear what he had to say, as to be better informed about the future of this country. In his last few speeches he may have informed the world of very important changes, but I will never know. In this context, it is important to ignore reputation and let the speaker’s ethos be formed from the speech.

On the other hand, I think there are times when a person’s reputation is vital for understanding and interpreting the speech. Understanding the background of a person may help the listener understand the speaker’s stance. For example, a person who grew up in a war torn country has more credibility talking about what to do for people in a war torn society, then say someone who was born in a quiet suburb of Milwaukee. Understanding that the person has been through a certain circumstance, provides a sense that they may have some insight into the situation, thus establishing a credible ethos and pathetic appeal with the listeners. If the ethos is established by the listener without knowing the past experiences or expertise of the speaker, it will be biased.

Overall, there has to be a balance between reputation and the current speech when judging the speaker’s ethos. From the examples given, I would conclude that if the speaker’s reputation is bad, it may need to be ignored. However, if the reputation of the speaker is good and relevant it should be advanced. However, this in itself is very biased. Who is to judge whether the reputation is good or bad? And finally, the only way that a person’s reputation will not affect the ultimate message, is if the listener or the speaker are unfamiliar with one another. Otherwise it is impossible to ignore the reputation in today’s age of technology.

-ms