Answer to Cassandra's Week 5 Question 1

1. “Analyzing Argument” by Hart, pg. 90
Hart uses President Nixon’s Checkers Speech to describe Nixon’s persuasiveness, but more importantly how everyday argumentation works outside of traditional logic (83). In the Evidence and Reasoning section on page 87, Hart explains the rhetorical costs of comparisons. Hart gives the example of Rabbi Prinz’s speech comparing the Jewish experience during WWII to black’s experience in the United States (90). The author then states comparisons are not as effective as examples (near bottom of pg. 90). I agree with Hart on this point because comparisons do not engage the audience or allow the audience to participate as do narratives (93). For example, how a black and Jew shared a common experience through a narrative would be more memorable than a list of similarities and contrasts. Do you believe comparisons or examples/narratives are more effective in persuasion? Why?

Answer:

I find that narratives are more effective in persuading audience members than comparisons. Comparisons, in my opinion, are risky and can quickly disengage or distract a listener. Narrative/example can serve as a more effective form of persuasion, because it can better mask the intent and purpose of the narrative or example. Additionally, narrative/example is a disguised, captivating, and personalized form of persuasion. However, these qualities are also what make narratives quite a deceptive and intoxicating style of persuasion.
A comparison could be quickly disregarded or greatly despised if one’s personal experience doesn’t mirror the experience implied by the comparison. This could easily happen, because “[…]when listening, listeners never start from scratch” (Hart 82). Hart’s table (on page 88) provides the following example of an “extended comparison,” “A reference group is similar to a mother – it nurtures our feelings when we are hurt; it disciplines us for violating its norms; it helps mature us by…” (Hart 88). This psychological reference point, in my opinion, is chancy. What if some listeners never received this type of care from his or her mother? What if a listener’s mother physically abused them as a form of discipline? What if, in any way, one’s experience with mothers does not reflect this? Surely most people will understand that it is simply comparing two supposed norms, but if the type of mother-child relationship described isn’t the norm for a listener, it’s going to grab their attention, and may easily create emotional distance from the speaker. Comparisons could also distract a listener, as it may result in wandering, tangential thoughts about mothers, for instance.
Hart emphasizes the somewhat frightening truth that “[p]ackages of ideas and emotions serve as arguments in the ordinary world” (Hart 86). Narratives advance persuasion, because they “[…] awaken within listeners dormant experiences and feelings” (Hart 93). Thus, narratives allow each listener to personally decorate the package. A rhetorician is capable of presenting an argument entirely through narrative/example without ever stating it, as “[g]ood narrative holds open the illusion that we – as listeners and readers – help to determine its meaning” (Hart 93). Hart also reminds readers that needs and experience guide human decision-making, and that “sense” is negotiated by people themselves. People use “[…] their beliefs, hopes, fears, and experiences to guide them” toward the “sense” they then construct.
Narratives contrive a supposed “sense” negotiated by rhetorician’s themselves. So, it allows listeners to believe that the speaker made sense of a personal experience/story/example in a way that they likely did not. This “sense” was written, formulated, crafted, and perfected to represent certain ways the rhetorician understands, reflects, believes, fears, and reacts, so we feel closer to them and their message.
In Nixon’s Checker’s speech, for example, he states the following in his personal narrative: “I went into the service. Let me say that my service record was not a particularly unusual one […] I guess I’m entitled to a couple of battle stars. I got a couple of letters of commendation. But I was just there when the bombs were falling” (Hart 94). The “sense” listeners choose to make from this statement will vary. Nixon was clearly, in my opinion, trying to defer any heroic accolades, while simultaneously listing his achievements. Moreover, it implies that Nixon’s negotiated “sense” of his war experiences is modest, fearless, and he sees his acts to be of no particular significance. So, why would such a humble war veteran steal?