Boy Meets World and the Art of Rhetoric

What can I say about Aristotle? First of all, I need to try and make sense of a couple of the different rhetorical techniques he brings up in On Rhetoric. I apologize in advance for having to get this out of the way, but Aristotle’s repetition and use of double negatives kept me a bit confused.  

An enthymeme is a form of a syllogism.

(Example syllogism from 11^th grade courtesy of my best friend):

Blondes have more fun. Catherine is a blonde. Catherine has more fun.

An enthymeme is formed by stating a conclusion and then providing reasons to support that conclusion. Also, we get an enthymeme from a probability, which according to Aristotle, is “what happens for the most part” (1.2.15). With a paradigm, the universal link is not expressed but assumed by the audience. As Kennedy says, a paradigm is like an induction in that it moves from a certain statement to “parallels” (note 51). The two kinds of paradigm are historical and fictional. Aristotle tells us it is best to employ a paradigm in a deliberative speech “for we judge future things by predicting them from past ones.” A speaker should use an enthymeme in a judicial speech “for what has happened in some unclear way is best given a cause and demonstration” (1.9.40).

No matter what form of logic Aristotle describes, he always comes back to the idea that a speaker must know his audience. And more than that, “a speaker should have a virtuous moral intent and an understanding of the good” (1.9.27). There are many emotions that a speaker must be aware of if he is going to persuade effectively. (I wonder if Aristotle’s students got overwhelmed with all the guidelines for the three kinds of speeches. I know I did.)  

Aristotle knew it was important to point out the ease and difficulty of persuading an audience. He states the following in Book 2:

“For [in rhetoric] the conclusion should not be drawn from far back, nor is it necessary to include everything…This is the reason why the uneducated are more persuasive than the educated before a crowd, just as the poets say the uneducated are more ‘inspired by the Muses’ in a crowd” (2.22.3).

The argument must be clear, because a general audience needs to be able to clearly follow what the speaker is saying.  Further in this passage, Aristotle notes that the uneducated base their decisions on “what [particulars] they know and instances near their experience.” An uneducated audience will agree with details with which they can relate.

An example I’d like to use are two clips from a Boy Meets World episode in which Cory runs for 8^th grade student president. The classic scene shows Cory being accused of “flip flopping” because of Shawn’s 3^rd grade incident of saying all girls are “icky.” The accuser (fellow classmate and voice of the crowd) announces proof of the incident and uses emotion to impassion the uneducated crowd.  He employs Aristotle’s topic 27, the tactic of accusing by pointing out a mistake that will diminish Cory’s credibility. A form of analogy is even used, because if Shawn is a flip flopper, Cory must be one as well. The result finds Shawn out of his job as campaign manager, because Cory wants to please the crowd. As long as “Shawn is out,” then Cory is still in the race.

The next clip shows Cory on Election Day admitting to the crowd that he isn’t qualified to run and is a terrible friend. Shawn boosts his friend’s credibility by admitting that Cory is in fact “honest, loyal and decent” (everything a good rhetor should be as Aristotle points out). The clip ends with Topanga stepping up and further appealing to the emotions of the crowd and engaging them in chanting her name. She makes specific promises: better cafeteria food, new books, and even a water slide. She appeals to the “particulars” that the students can relate to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX6ItBKEttQ&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3sshYeZEBw&feature=relmfu

Is this the kind of rhetoric Aristotle had in mind? Perhaps not exactly, but I think it’s safe to say the general practices he puts forth in On Rhetoric are more common in everyday speech than we might think.