Rhetoric and Propaganda Manipulation and Persuasion

What is propaganda? Manipulation through images and words Propaganda blurs truth and fiction to persuade people to follow a particular belief, person, or idea rely heavily on emotional, rather than rational, appeal often intentionally misleading, relying on half-truth, generalities, logical fallacies and outright lies in order to achieve its ends Designed to create a sense of collective fear or euphoria (happiness) so people blindly accept ideas

Why do people use propaganda? During wartime, to build mistrust and hatred, and to dehumanize the enemy During commercials to make you feel like you must buy a product During elections to make you mistrust (or trust) a candidate Satiric pieces to make something or someone look ridiculous

Types of propaganda Bandwagon Effect: using peer pressure to create a “herd” mentality, where people follow the crowd The idea that “Everyone is doing it, so you should too”

Types of propaganda Testimonial: use of celebrity or expert to persuade; often in the case of famous people they really are not qualified to speak on the issue/product

Types of Propaganda Plain Folks Appeal: Techniques to make a person or idea connect with the average person “This issue does concern you!” “I am just like you!” Even someone’s clothing can be subtle propaganda: why would President Obama roll his sleeves up?

Types of propaganda Glimmering Generalities: Use of words with positive connotations and images favorable symbolic value Word examples: justice, liberty, patriotism Image examples: flags, stars, colors (red, white blue)

Types of Propaganda Personal Attacks (Name Calling): linking a person with a negative name, idea, or image. This technique uses negative connotations and is generally the opposite of Glimmering Generalities

Additional types of propaganda Oversimplification of ideas “Four legs good, two legs bad!” Stereotyping and broad generalizations False, exaggerated patriotism

Logical Fallacies manipulation of language parts of a seemingly reasonable argument that, upon close inspection, turn out to be inaccurate or deceptive fallacious argument will likely appear to be extremely persuasive recognizing logical fallacies requires the careful examination of an argument in order to determine its validity Squealer uses many logical fallacies to justify his actions Difficult for uneducated people/animals to identify

Hasty Generalizations assumptions about a person or a group of people based on insufficient evidence or examples often include words such as “always,” “all,” “every” Examples: All women are bad drivers. I am always right and never make mistakes, so vote for me.

Ad hominem disagreeing with your opponent, not by explaining why his or her idea is unreasonable, but by attacking your opponent’s character or personality In Animal Farm, the animals might argue, “You shouldn’t listen to Mollie’s ideas; she is a self-centered and arrogant horse.” These qualities may be true, but they don’t necessarily mean that her ideas are bad or wrong

Red Herring going off on a tangent not immediately related to the argument at hand has no bearing on the actual argument under discussion Purpose is to distract the opponent and derail the discussion in the absence of a fair and reasonable response

Appeal to Authority involves referring to famous or influential people in order to substantiate a claim attempts to persuade his/her audience simply by stating that certain famous or influential people believe the same thing, even if these people are no experts on the discussion in question

False Dichotomy an arguer presents a situation and pretends that the listener has only two choices, when in reality there are more than two options For example, if the pigs say, “You either support Napoleon, or you prove that you want Mr. Jones to return” the other animals might well prefer a third alternative: not living under the leadership of Napoleon or Mr. Jones

Slippery Slope a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - false cause/effect asserts that, since one event—A—occurred before another event—B—, A must have caused B no necessary causal relation between the two events simply because of the chronology of their occurrence

Begging the claim The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim The argument is true because the argument says so

Circular Argument restates the argument rather than actually proving it