ssodsp ‘OntAAUt Jo sprepuers 10 suotiED stp azhyeue 01 Atpanidusoid pasn sea JOISHIV-0dU po|te> Layo EINUUNO) 20 DISKS TRIPHD ou Wed Idwexa soJ “sasinoosip {fe 0} SUONDUDs9d Jo 435 JO EMULE] ud OF Deordde aandirsodd ays “wisiAHD ratedudsaid mugex9 Jopun 398 feDHOI=U Ou3 jo jodsa1 JRE WISER Huw oF wwawNTLLE) ust uy asoyn aroidu Ip 10U aue saseyd 10 saBiers 9s yo siustutip: jaysés 40 “yvosdde uusIsiq141D Jo abeys say UL Ajeuy aandiussaq OML YdLdVHD1S PARIL Phe act of his or audience ads and etiros or the meé Which thetors make themselves seem wo lowing that formula often evaluated achieving the thetor's purpose terms of its effective: mediate audience. order, and law. These values are sometimes challenge: acts arguing that power holders use such values to rationalize injustice and oppression (see Robert L. Scott and Donald K, Smith, “The Rheto- ric of Controntation"), Contemporary critics must examine and de- velop critical systems to describe and evaluate such thetoric in ways that do not inevitably force them to censure its purposes and strategies. Ultimately, the danger is not in any particular critical formula or sys- ‘but rather in viewing any single critical system as mono- ie—that ts, as appropriate In every case. An organic approach to criticism asks critics to consider a rhetorical act on Its own terms, not to approach it with prejudgments and prior assumptions. The first stage of criticism Is an evidence-gathering en- deavor that, if done carefully and thoroughly, puts the critic in posses- sion of the act, giving the critic a detailed understanding of how the rhetorical act works to achleve its ends. An organic approach to criti- ism focuses on the specific goals of particular persuaders in specific contexts; it views rhetorical acts as patterns of justification and inter action that grow out of particular co} such an ap- proach, crities apply critical categories that in the discourse; they are eclectic, experiential pluralists, selecting and adapting a critieal framework in order to reveal and respond to the peculiarities of that rhetorical event, Conflict between formulaic and organte approaches to criticism need not be irreconcilable. Good criticism is oftert the result of se- lecting and applying elements from une or more perspectives that seem best suited to illuminating the discourse under consideration. Several critical perspectives are described in later chapters, In one sense, these, to0, are formulas of prescriptions that represemst options for critics. ut for many, if not most discourses, critics must “Invent” ive Anas Te Fest Stage of Ci a critical approach adapted to the particular work or gence they are evaluating.! An essential premise of the organic approach és that cess should begin with 2 carefuul and exhaustive exam: critica! pro- come to know the discourse ont encumbered by as few presuppos text in which the discourse was produced is of e completion of the critical process. And Know something, pethaps a great deal, about the circumstances and events leading up 40 and surrounding the discourse. But that know! edge of context should be put aside for the moment, ‘vestigation of context should be delayed until examination of the dis- course itselt is completed. We believe that to do otherwise and begin tthe critical process with an in-depth examination of the context is po- tentially risky tor-at least two reasons, Firs, it risks elevating histori- cal-contextual Sssues to a position of Importance above the discourse itself. Such an emphasis on historical issues is essential in rhetorical ihistorlography, an equally important, but different, scholarly activity, In thetorical criticism the discourse itselt should be of prime impor tance. Second, it risks creating a counterproductive bias in the critical process, By carefully examining the context first, critics may form pre- conceptions regarding what the rhetor could have, or should have, said. Those perceptions could then easily distort the analysis and evaluation of the discourse. ‘Through descriptive analysis, critics attempt to discover what chat- acteristics, {f any, make a discourse ot group of discourses distinctive. At thie completion of this stage, critics should be familiar with che nue ances of the rhetoric and aware of the rhetor’s selections of language, structure, arguments, and evidence. Crities will then have excellent grounds for ascertaining a thetor’s purpose and the responses that thetor seeks from the audience or audiences. They will also have ex tracted information to determine the role the speaker or writer has the ways the audiences are perceived and selected, and the choice of persuasive strategies. s should be entirely intrinsic; that is, critics ve statements solely on the basis of the content20 PARE hear of Rhatorcal of the discourse itself. Yhey should use extrinsic materials and.sources only under very fimited circumstances, One such circumstance is to determine the authenticity of the text, The other Is to identify refer- ences to persons, places, events, and the like in the discourse with which they are untamiliar; such identification may be necessary in or- der to understand how the references function in the discourse, Oth- erwise, the single source needed to complete this first phase of the critical process is the discourse itself. ELEMENTS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ive analysis seeks answers to two fundamental questions; ( fhe apparent purpose of the discourse, or what alm or goal ‘hetor seem to seek? (2) How does the discourse work to igies does the rhetor Rhetorical strategies are many and diverse. of discourse in terms of the following : purpose, persona, audience, tone, structuse, supporting achieve the goa suggest descr seven eleme materials, acid other strategies. Keep in mind that, with the possible exception of purpose, each of the other six etements should be con: sidered for its strategic function in the discourse. Be aware that the elements frequently overlap and are interrelated. How they are mani- fested and how they function may vary considerably from one dise course to another: We have resisted the temptation to Include “argu: ments” in the list of elements of descriptive analysis. To-do sa, we fear, this phase of the critical process in favor of ratior components that compose ional sense are present in the seven elements, tic perspective. Purpose Purpose refers to the argumentative conclusions, particularly the major conclusion or thesis, of the discourse and the responses desired by the source from those who receive the message. Analysis of purpose ust ally requires careful analysis of the structure through which major ideas are devejoped and their relationships emerge. In many dis- courses the conclusion, oF thesis, 4s explicitly stated. In others, the Deserpaive An The Fist Stage oF Caticiem 21 Purpose is implicit ane! must be interned fi purpose is closely allied to the cone.of the description of the iexpli kinds of responses different parts of the audience. Such purposes may inelude the tradi- ‘tional goals of acceptance and understanding or such “radical” goals as feeling ashamed or experiencing confrontation, polarization, and slienation. implicit purposes aze related to the chetor's perceptions of the audience or audiences addressed. Persona ‘Persona reters to a sole.oy soles that a thetor takes on for stratezic pur- ‘poses, much as.an actor assumes a role or character in a play. Persona is revealed in the language of the discourse. For example, when ad- dressing the people of the Linited States, the president may take on thority on United States may beadopted within a fence by creating or contrlbuting to a thetor’s ethos or credibility. At this stage, the discourse and the identities rhetors create for the discourse of the roles they assume in its devel function of the discourse for its author? How does identity for the speaker or writer? ‘To what degroc does the discourse serve as self-expression or self-persuasion? If the discourse were the only piece of evidence available trom which to determine the charac- ter of the author, what inferences could be made about that person? A discourse reveals the attitudes and beliefs of its author. The rhetor’s views of humanity, truth, and society may reveal the philosophic po- sition or perspective from which that person speaks. Moreover, thetors may take on particular identities or roles to strategically en= hance their persuasive influence. Audience ‘The actual or empirical audience is composed of all those who recei the thetor’s message. For speeches, the empirical audience inclu those who are present when the speech is delivered as well as those ‘who read a transcript of the speech or watch or hear a video or sound