ENG 455, Persuasive Writing
Fall 2010, TR 12:40-1:55, HSS 51
Dr. Gold, 314 McClung, TR 2:10-3:10 and by appt.
“Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.” —John Milton
“What democracy requires is public debate, not information. Of course it needs information too, but the kind of information it needs can be generated only by vigorous popular debate.” —Christopher Lasch
ENG 455 introduces students to persuasive writing in public contexts. We will study techniques of persuasion, analyze persuasive writing, and write persuasive texts, making use of insights from classical and contemporary rhetoric, communications, cognitive science, and media studies. Throughout, we will emphasize persuasion in civic discourse and public argument. Milton and Lasch suggest that argument can generate knowledge. Can it? What does it mean to ethically argue and persuade? Why is it so difficult to persuade through rational argument? What psychological, cognitive, and cultural mechanisms guide persuasion? How do we engage in argument when basic facts about reality are in question? What are the possibilities—and limits—of rhetoric in promoting productive discourse? My goal is that this course will increase both your understanding of persuasive techniques and your participation in persuasive public discourse.
TEXTS (required by week 2 regardless of availability at bookstore; both available through Amazon)
Farhad Manjoo, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society (ISBN 0470050101)
Sharon Crowley, Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism (ISBN 0822959232)
All other readings available through the course website.
ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING
Daily reaction papers: Unless other written homework has been assigned, for each day’s reading you will write a 250-word reaction paper, due at the beginning of class. This is not a summary but an argument about the text; make it dense, specific, and concise, focusing on one or two elements of the text that strike you and offering both claim and textual support.
Daily homework: For some readings, a written homework assignment (HW), noted in the schedule, will substitute for the reaction paper. Some of these will take considerable time to complete, so plan ahead; missing homework assignments will quickly bring down your course grade.
Major assignments (75%): You will write three majors essays: a 1) rhetorical analysis of a public argument; 2) a cognitive analysis of a rhetorical claim, requiring research and group deliberation; and 3) a persuasive personal argument, requiring engaging with someone with whom you disagree. Each will be submitted as part of a portfolio comprising 25% of your grade.
Participation and attendance (25%): To achieve full credit, you must satisfactorily complete all reading and writing assignments (homework, reaction papers, quizzes, etc.), actively participate in class, and not miss or be late to any more than two class sessions. Each missed assignment or tardy/absence for any reason beyond the allotted amount will bring your participation and attendance grade down one full letter. Please note that if you have five or more absences, you will fail the course.
COURSE POLICIES
You are expected to come to every class on time, having completed all assigned readings and homework, and to actively, enthusiastically, and respectfully participate in all class activities. This course requires extensive reading, writing, and speaking, with overlapping assignments and daily written homework; please keep well in advance of the syllabus so that there are no surprises.
Other requirements: All homework and take-home assignments must be typed, carefully proofread, and properly formatted (12 pt. Times New Roman; 1″ margins; double spaced; stapled; MLA format). Please make sure that all work is your own; appropriating others’ work, cutting and pasting from the web, failing to properly acknowledge sources, recycling work from a previous class, or other forms of plagiarism or academic dishonesty are grounds for failure and further disciplinary action. Late work is not accepted; if work is due and you will not be present, send it with a peer or email it before the start of class. If you miss a class, it is your responsibility to contact your peers to find out what you missed. Turn off all electronic devices and put away all food before coming to class.
Contacting me: The best way to contact me is through email. Please make sure that you put the course number (ENG 455) somewhere in the subject line and that you send from your UTK account. If you need to send a file, I accept attachments in DOC, PDF, or RTF format. If you would like to meet with me but cannot make my office hours, I am happy to arrange a mutually convenient time.
SCHEDULE (subject to modification)
Please see the “Detailed Assignments” section for daily HW instructions.
Unit I, Rhetoric and Persuasion
Week 1, What is argument?
R 8/19, Monty Python, “Argument Sketch” | Nancy Wood, “Argument Basics” [conditions for argument, rhetorical situation] | HW: Defining argument
Week 2, Means of persuasion
T 8/24, Pamela Gerhardt, “Higher Degree of Indifference” | Nancy Wood, “Types of Proofs” | HW: Apply proofs
R 8/26, Walker and Sillars, “Perelman’s Theory of Values” | HW: Apply Perelman
Week 3, Persuasion and values
T 8/31, Sonja Foss, “Pentadic Criticism” | HW: Apply Burke
R 9/2, Intelligence Squared debate, “Is America Too Damn Religious?” | HW: Debate judging
Week 4, Persuasion and evidence
T 9/7, Rieke and Sillars, “Refutation by Fallacy Claims” | Ramage and Bean, “Informal Fallacies” | HW: Testing claims
R 9/9, Don Lazere, “Bias Calculator ” and “Ground Rules for Polemicists”| HW: Apply Lazere
Week 5, Writing workshop
T 9/14, Portfolio 1 due (rhetorical analysis) | Workshop
R 9/16, Style workshop: microediting | Intro to Unit II
Unit II, Encountering Differences in Knowledge
Week 6, Communications, cognition, and persuasion
T 9/21, Dainton and Zelley, “Theories of Persuasion”
R 9/23, Dainton and Zelley, “Theories of Mediated Communication” | Obama: “Hands”; “Ranch” | McCain: “Painful”; “Taxman” | Texting while driving: “PSA 1″; “PSA 2″ | HW: Cognitive analysis
Week 7, Politics and persuasion
T 9/28, Farhad Manjoo, True Enough, intro and ch. 1, “Reality Splitting”
R 9/30, Manjoo, chs. 2, “Swift Boats,” and 4, “Stolen Election” | Sample VNRs
Week 8, Politics and persuasion
T 10/5, Manjoo, ch. 6, “Truthiness Everywhere” | Stephen Colbert: “The Word: Truthiness” | Test case: Shirley Sherrod [in-class videos] | Portfolio 2 topic proposal due
R 10/7, Fall break—no class
Week 9, Testing persuasive claims
T 10/12, Johns Hopkins University Library, Evaluating Internet Information” | Ramage and Bean, “Evidence” | HW: Unreliable website
R 10/14, Test case [media bias]: Meg Sullivan, “Media Bias Is Real” | Media Matters, “Flawed Study” | Dow Jones, “Response” | Mike Rosen, “Leftstream Isn’t Mainstream” | E. J. Dionne, “Rush and Newt Are Winning” | FAIR, “Think Tanks” | FreePress.net, “Who Owns the Media?” | *Groseclose and Milyo, “A Measure of Media Bias” | HW: Selective Exposure
Week 10, Project presentations
T 10/19, Portfolio 2 due | Presentations
R 10/21, Martha Kolln, “Making Stylistic Choices” | Style workshop | Intro to Unit III
Unit III, Engaging Differences in Belief
Week 11, Listening rhetoric and Rogerian argument
T 10/26 , Wayne Booth, “Judging Rhetoric” | Video, “Obama Heckled” | HW: Judging exercise
R 10/28, Nancy Wood, “Rogerian Argument” | Douglass Brent, “Rogerian Rhetoric” | Manjoo and Johnson, “Slate Debate” | HW: Rogerian evaluation
Week 12, Ethics and persuasion
T 11/2, Project 3 proposal due (creative persuasion) | Proposal workshop
R 11/4, Jay Heinrichs, Thank You for Arguing | HW: Ethical evaluation
Week 13, Ideology and belief
T 11/9, Sharon Crowley, Toward a Civil Discourse, chs. 1-2
R 11/11, Crowley, ch. 3
Week 14, Engaging difference
T 11/16, Crowley, chs. 4-5
R 11/18, Crowley, ch. 7 | Shannon Carter, “Living in the Bible (Belt)” | HW: Engagement strategies
Week 15, Project workshop
T 11/23, Workshop
R 11/25, Thanksgiving break—no class
Week 16, Project presentations
T 11/30, Portfolio 3 due | Presentations | Wrap up and evaluations
Finals
T 12/7, TBA
DETAILED ASSIGNMENTS
If a reading has been assigned and no other homework has been specified for that day, please write a reaction paper in response to the reading. Unless otherwise specified, all reaction papers and homework assignments should be about 250 words.
Unit I, Rhetoric and Persuasion
R 8/19, Defining argument: Read Monty Python, “The Argument Sketch,” and Nancy Wood, “Argument Basics,” then answer the question: Does the sketch feature an argument?
T 8/24, Apply proofs: Analyze Gerhardt by answering the following questions. How does she use 1) ethos, 2) pathos, and 3) logos? You might consider the types of proofs (e.g., Logos: She argues from sign, suggesting that Woodstock ‘99 represents the attitude of a generation) or the language and style she employs to reach her audience (e.g., Pathos: Gerhardt uses highly charged, emotional language—”trucks in flames; destroyed ATM machines; flying rocks”—to garner sympathy for her claim that today’s kids are out of control).
R 8/26, Apply Perelman: Consider Gerhardt’s imagined audience (you may or may not consider yourself part of that audience) and potential points of departure for her argument. Then answer the following: 1) What does she present as facts or truths that her argument rests on? 2) What presumptions does she rely on? 3) What values does she, uh, value? 4) How would she arrange her hierarchy of values? 5) What loci (or locus) does she employ?
T 8/31, Apply Burke: Do a quick pentadic analysis of Gerhardt’s editorial, identifying the 1) scene, 2) agent, 3) agency, 4) act, and 5) purpose. Then analyze the ratios and find the 6) motive. Does any one element of the pentad drive the rest?
R 9/2, Debate judging: Answer the following, providing evidence from the text to support your claims: 1) Who was the most persuasive rhetor and why? 2) The least persuasive and why?
T 9/7, Testing claims: Applying the readings to TDR debate, find at least five fallacies of argument. For each, a) identify the speaker, b) quote the relevant passage, c) identify and explain the fallacy, and, most importantly, d) evaluate to what extent it diminishes or enhances the speaker’s effectiveness for their audience.
R 9/9, Apply Lazere: Pick one rhetor from the TDR debate. 1) To what extent does he or she follow the guidelines for arguing that Lazere outlines in “Ground Rules for Polemicists” and “Semantic Bias Calculator”? 2) To what extent are Lazere’s guidelines worth following?
Unit II, Encountering Differences in Knowledge
R 9/23, Cognitive analysis (300-500 words): Using one or more of the psychological and cognitive theories of persuasion we have studied, analyze two of the assigned videoclips. What makes them effective or ineffective for their various audiences?
T 10/12, Unreliable website: Find a website [or webpage] that is completely unreliable. Applying criteria from the JHU Library and Ramage and Bean, find at least five features that make it so and briefly describe why.
R 10/14, Selective exposure (300-500 words): Read the various responses to the Groseclose and Milyo, then the original study. Based on your reading, to what extent do you find the study credible, and why?
Unit III, Engaging Differences in Belief
T 10/26, Judging exercise: Consider Booth’s taxonomy of rhetorics. What strategy does Obama employ in responding to the hecklers, and to what extent is it effective for his audience(s)?
R 10/28, Rogerian evaluation: To what extent do Manjoo and Johnson make use of Rogerian strategies? To what extent does this assist their communication or advance their arguments? What effect do their strategies have on you as an audience?
R 11/4, Ethical evaluation: Read Heinrichs’ advice for arguers. To what extent do you find his strategies for establishing discourse rules and achieving identification effective? To what extent do you find them ethical? Are they likely to lead to persuasion or continued conversation?
R 11/18, Engagement strategies: To what extent do Carter and Crowley offer viable solutions for engaging with difference? Whose strategies are more likely to lead to persuasion?