6/11/2013

1

RHETORIC IS EVERYWHEREMrs. Oualline

English III

RHETORIC IS SERIOUSLY EVERYWHERE

Creeped out yet? Do you feel like a monster named “Rhetoric” is stalking you?

Whether you realize it or not, you are surrounded by RHETORIC!by RHETORIC! (It’s really not as creepy as it sounds. Well, actually, it is

kinda creepy.)

Just call me Rhetoric. Grrrr.

SO, IF THIS THING IS EVERYWHERE… WHY HAVEN’T I NOTICED IT BEFORE?

Actually, you have (you just don’t know it)!

In fact, most of you are all MASTERS of Rhetoric. How many times have you talked your parents into or

out of something? What about your teachers? Brothers? Sisters? Friends?

You use rhetoric every time you try to get something you want.

You become masters of Rhetoric because you are surrounded by it. It is a survival skill.

The key to being MASTERS of Rhetorical Analysis is becoming AWARE of the things you already KNOW.

6/11/2013

2

WELL, WHAT EXACTLY IS RHETORIC?!!

Rhetoric is:

The art of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.

The study of effective use of language.

Th f ki i i ff i l The art of speaking or writing effectively.

The art of making persuasive arguments.

The art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.

YIKES! That’s a lot of definition for one word!

BASICALLY…

Rhetoric deals with the way we use language.

For the purposes of our class, RHETORIC is the art of speaking or writing effectively.

THEREFORE:

Rhetorical ANALYSIS is ANALYZING the way someone has used language! (Usually with a focus on a person’s effectiveness regarding persuasion or argument.)

THE CLASSICAL APPEALS

Ethos The Ethical Appeal

PathosThe Emotional Appeal

You can thank the famous Greek The Emotional Appeal

Logos The Logical Appeal

NOTE: A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Greek philosopher and teacher, Aristotle, for these terms.

6/11/2013

3

ETHOS – THE ETHICAL APPEAL

Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, involves convincing by the character of the writer or speaker. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone p yworth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect.

PATHOS – THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL

Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice pp , p g gaffects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument.

“JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM.”

LOGOS – THE LOGICAL APPEAL

Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive , preason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing.

6/11/2013

4

LOGOS:INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive Reasoning Drawing a conclusion based on a fact or factual

information.

Gather the facts, draw the conclusion. Research; Scientific Method

Deductive Reasoning Beginning with a general conclusion or idea and

applying it directly to a specific case.

Start with a proven conclusion or generalization, apply it to a scenario. Profilers (like Criminal Minds)

RHETORICAL DEVICES

When trying to get one’s message across, one must have a PLAN! This is where Rhetorical Devices come in!

Analogy

Antithesis Antithesis

Anticipate the Objection

Concession

Reduce to the Absurd

Rhetorical Question

Under/Overstatement

(Don’t forget all those types syntax, diction, and figurative language! Those are strategies, too!)

RHETORICAL DEVICES

ANALOGY

You should be pretty familiar with this one. An Analogy is a comparison between two things. (‘Simile’ and ‘metaphor’ should come to mind.)

As a strategy a writer or speaker can use an analogy As a strategy, a writer or speaker can use an analogy to clarify a concept by showing a similarity to something more familiar.

Teachers do this all the time.

If you ever watch the TV show “Numb3rs,” the main character does this often.

6/11/2013

5

RHETORICAL DEVICES

ANTITHESIS

Antithesis is an opposition or a contrast of ideas or words in a balanced or parallel construction.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… A Tale of Two Cities Dickens A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens

Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Brutus, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare

Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing. Goethe

Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee. Advertisement

RHETORICAL DEVICES

ANTICIPATE THE OBJECTION

Anticipating the Objection is addressing a possible protest to your argument before your opposition has a chance to raise the question.

Part of producing an effective argument is knowing Part of producing an effective argument is knowing the arguments of the opposition. If a speaker addresses the issues first, the opposition loses some of it’s ability to argue against the stance.

RHETORICAL DEVICES

CONCESSION

Concession is an admission in an argument that the opposing side has points; to grant, allow, or yield to a point.

Why would a person acknowledge the arguments of Why would a person acknowledge the arguments of his opposition? Avoid looking ignorant or obtuse.

Take the “steam” out of the opposing argument by confronting it head-on.

Avoid alienating those who have not made up their mind. (See: Glenn Beck)

6/11/2013

6

RHETORICAL DEVICES

REDUCE TO THE ABSURD

Reduce to the Absurd is a statement to show the utter absurdity of an opposing argument.

The Detroit Lions will win the Super Bowl when hell freezes overfreezes over.

I will go out with him when pigs fly.

RHETORICAL DEVICES

RHETORICAL QUESTION

A Rhetorical Question is a question that is posed for the purpose of thought, not an actual answer.

Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause.d you a us o espec you cause ou jus da ed you cause

Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.

Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.

Leonard Pitts, September 12, 2001

RHETORICAL DEVICES

TERMS FROM STYLE ANALYSIS

All of the terminology that you use when analyzing the STYLE of a writer can also be used to analyze the RHETORIC (or effective use of language) Polysyndeton

AsyndetonAsyndeton

Anaphora

Epistrophe

Apostrophe

Hyperbole/Litotes

Oxymoron

et. al.

6/11/2013

7

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Fallacies are inconsistencies within an argument.

In order to adequately analyze one’s arguments (or create your own), you must be aware of the various types of fallacies!types of fallacies!

A logical fallacy can seriously undermine one’s argument – BEWARE!

LOGICAL FALLACIES

AD HOMINUM

Latin: “To the Man”

Ad Hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example: Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they Green Peace s strategies aren t effective because they

are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

AD POPULUM

Latin: “To the Crowd” Ad Populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to

positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. If you were a true American you would support the president in

i fa time of war. In this example the author equates being a "true American," a

concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with supporting the president.

Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so! While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in

determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn't determine what is moral or immoral: There was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral.

6/11/2013

8

LOGICAL FALLACIES

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. George Bush is a good communicator because he

speaks effectively.

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it –"he speaks effectively" – are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

BANDWAGON APPEAL

Bandwagon Appeal: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn’t you? This appeal uses a threat of rejection from one’s peers replaces the evidence in an argument.

If ’ i h ’ i If you’re not with us, you’re against us.

This is a favorite among politicians. Most recently, it has been used to gain support for “The War on Terror,” but in the 1950’s, Senator Joseph McCarthy and company used this same argument to persecute Americans who were viewed as a threat to democracy (SEE: McCarthyism, Red Scare, Blacklisting, etc.).

LOGICAL FALLACIES

EITHER/OR FALLACY

Either/Or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

6/11/2013

9

LOGICAL FALLACIES

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the

environment, eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

FAULTY ANALOGY

Faulty Analogy: Overlooking important dissimilarities between two situations. What’s happening in America today is exactly like Nazi

Germany in the 1930s. If we don’t do something now, we are going to end up just like the Germans!

This claim conveniently overlooks the fact that the American government is not rounding up citizens for mass slaughter.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Hasty Generalization: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards," "grad students are nerdy " etc ) are a common example of the principle nerdy, etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is

going to be a boring course.

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses.

6/11/2013

10

LOGICAL FALLACIES

LOADED WORDS

*Pet Peeve Alert*

Loaded Words: Unjustifiably using highly connotative diction to describe something favorably or not.

No Child Left Behind

The War on Terror

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Homeland Security

Taxpayer-Funded Bailout

Hope and Change

LOGICAL FALLACIES

POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC

Latin: “After this, therefore because of this.”

Post Hoc Fallacy: This is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’ I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must

have made me sick.

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

NON SEQUITUR

Latin: “It does not follow.” Non Sequitur: an inference or conclusion that does

not follow established evidence or premises.

Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty!

Our Church is responsible for helping many of those in need. This surely proves that our God is alive.

6/11/2013

11

LOGICAL FALLACIES

GENETIC FALLACY

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was

originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

RED HERRING

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the g , gaudience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue. Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair

thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

OTHER LOGICAL FALLACIES

Straw Man In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version

of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive eitherimpressive either.

Appeal to Ignorance In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look,

there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

Appeal to Pity The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get

people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

6/11/2013

12

RHETORICAL STRATEGIES

A rhetorical strategy is any device that persuades the audience to agree with the author.

THAT MEANS…all of those rhetorical devices are strategies strategies.

Also, all of those logical fallacies are a type of rhetorical strategy, too. (But they can cause some major holes in one’s argument!)

BREAKING DOWN THE RHETORIC

In order to analyze the rhetoric, you must have a strategy for approaching the task at hand.

PATTRP Purpose

Audience

Theme

Tone

Rhetorical Strategies

CREATING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT

In Pre-AP English, you learned about the analysis of rhetoric. In AP Language, you will still need to know how to analyze the rhetoric, but you will also learn to create your own arguments in an effective way.

The Classical Argumentative Scheme Introduction (with thesis)

Concession

Refutation

Confirmation

Conclusion

WHAT TO LOOK FOR WHEN ANALYZING RHETORIC

P.A.T.T.R.

PURPOSE AUDIENCE

THEME TONE

RHETORICAL STATEGIES

1. Purpose (also called rhetorical appeal) – the main appeal or interest of the author; he/she may use one or all three of the appeals.

A. ethos – an ethical or value-based appeal; draws upon the audiences’ virtue, morals, prudence.

B. pathos – an emotional appeal; draws upon the audiences’ feelings and sentimentality

C. logos – a logical appeal; draws upon the audiences’ sense of reason using facts, statistics, evidence.

2. Audience – the listeners or readers of the rhetoric. Important factors include: age, race, gender, educational background, cultural identity 3. Theme – the subject being discussed and the author’s opinion about that subject. 4. Tone – a suggestion of the author’s attitude formulated by the analysis of diction, imagery, and

syntax. Tone is always expressed as an adjective. 5. Rhetorical Strategies – any device that persuades the audience to agree with the author A. Rhetorical Devices Analogy – clarifying an concept by showing similarity to a more familiar concept Antithesis – a statement OPPOSED to something previously asserted Example: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… (Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities) Anticipate an Objection – addressing a possible protest before the opposition can raise it

Example: My opponent states that my local law policies are soft on crime, but my record shows that crime is down 15% since my bill went into effect.

Concession – acknowledgement of personal flaws or flaws to a proposal; speaker-centered Example: I know that this plan is not perfect; however, providing a temporary fix will give our committee a chance to find a stronger, more viable option for the future.

Reduce to the Absurd – a statement to show the utter foolishness of another argument Example: The Detroit Lions will go to the Super Bowl when hell freezes over. Rhetorical Question – asking a question desiring thought, not an audible response Example: Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause. Under/Overstatement – saying considerably less or more than a condition warrants

13

B. Logical Fallacies Ad Hominem – “to the man”; a person’s character is attacked instead of his argument Example: Green Peace’s strategies aren’t effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies. Ad Populum – “to the crowd”; a widespread occurrence makes something wrong or right Example: If you were a true American, you would support the president in a time of war. Begging the Question – assuming in a premise that which needs to be proven before moving

on to the next idea; assumes that certain points are self-evident when they are not Example: The belief in God is universal; after all, everyone believes in God. Circular Argument – This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example: George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

Bandwagon Appeal – Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn’t you? In this appeal the threat of rejection from one’s peers replaces the evidence in an argument. Example: If you’re not with us, you’re against us.

Either/Or Fallacy – tending to see an issue as having only two sides; also called false dilemma Example: We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth. Faulty Analogy – overlooking important dissimilarities between two situations

Example: What’s happening in America today is exactly like Nazi Germany in the 1930’s. If we don’t do something now, we are going to end up just like the Germans.

Genetic Fallacy – A conclusion based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.

Example: The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed for Hitler’s army. Hasty Generalization – a conclusion is reached on the basis of too little evidence

Example: Even though it’s only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course. Loaded Words – unjustifiably using highly connotative diction to describe something

favorably or not Example: No Child Left Behind, Taxpayer-Funded Bailout, Weapons of Mass Destruction

Non Sequitur – in Latin, “it does not follow”; an inference of conclusion that does not follow established evidence or premises

Example: Our Church is responsible for helping many of those in need. This surely proves that our God is alive!

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – in Latin, “after this, therefore because of this”; first incident causes the second Example: I drank a bottle of water yesterday and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

Red Herring – a statement designed to draw attention from the central issue Example: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Slippery Slope – This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, B, C,…X, Y, Z will happen, too.

Example: If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment, eventually government will ban all cars; therefore, we should not ban Hummers.

14

Logical Fallacies In Argumentation

There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so that you can point them out in a discussion thereby focusing the issues where they belong while exposing error.

It is true that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the goal. Truth is. Nevertheless, it is logical fallacies that hide the truth. So, pointing them out is very useful.

1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument. 1. Example: You are so stupid you argument couldn't possibly be

true. 2. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I

ignored your comment. 2. Appeal to Force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if

he does not accept the argument. 1. Example: If you don't want to get beat up, you will agree with

what I say. 2. Example: Convert or die.

3. Appeal to Pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.

1. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.

2. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

4. Appeal to the Popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

1. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

2. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

15

5. Appeal to Tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

1. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.

2. Example: The Catholic Church’s tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

6. Bandwagon Appeals - a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

1. Example: Fifty million Elvis fans can’t be wrong! 7. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to

prove. It is circular. 1. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is

inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists. 2. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we

trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him. 8. Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the

events occur together. 1. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the

rooster causes the sun to rise. 2. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of

gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas. 9. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question 10. Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

1. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue. 2. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird

too. 11. Either-Or arguments – reduce complex issues to black and white choices.

1. Example: Either we go to Panama City for the whole week of Spring Break, or we don’t go anywhere at all.

12. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

1. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.

2. Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

13. False Authority – an authority in one field many know nothing of another field.

1. Example: A popular sports star may know a lot about football, but very little about shaving cream.

16

14. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?

2. Example: Do you still beat your wife? 15. Faulty Analogies – lead to faulty conclusions. Be sure the ideas you’re

comparing are really related. 1. Example: Forcing students to attend cultural events is like herding

cattle to slaughter. The students stampede in to the event where they are systematically “put to sleep” by the program.

16. Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim

1. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, it is immoral to buy a VW Beetle.

2. Example: Frank's just got out of jail last year and since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

17. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone that is disliked by another.

1. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad. 2. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

18. Ignoring the Question – similar to a red herring. Rather than answering the question that has been asked, the person shifts focus, supplying an unrelated argument.

1. Example: During a press conference, a political candidate is asked a pointed, specific question about some potentially illegal fund-raising activity. Instead of answering the allegations, the candidate gives a rousing speech thanking all of his financial supporters.

19. Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

1. Example: We know why it rained today, because I washed my car. 2. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more

bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine. 20. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before

he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument. 1. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows

everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject. 2. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

17

21. Post Hoc – a fallacy with the following form. 1. A occurs before B. 2. Therefore, A is the cause of B.

1. Example: Eating five candy bars and drinking two sodas before a test helps me get better grades. I did that and got an A on my last test in history.

2. Example: The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.

22. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand. 1. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone

to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems. 2. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank

yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you. 23. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to

another that is applied to oneself. 1. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you

are a man. 2. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

24. Slippery Slope – suggests that one step will inevitably lead to more, eventually negative steps.

1. Example: We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!

2. Example: You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you.

25. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.

1. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.

2. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

18

Elements of Argument: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Aristotle identified three modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Argument: (1) a process of reasoning and advancing proof;

(2) the art of influencing others, through the medium of REASONED discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act;

(3) a statement or statements offering support for a claim; (4) composed of at least three parts: claim, support, warrant.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION

ETHOS: Ethical Appeal

Intelligence Virtue Good Will Aristotle believed that ethos was the most important element of persuasion. His premise: if you do not accept the speaker because of a lack of good character or credibility, then you will not accept his argument. For Aristotle, a speaker demonstrated his good character and credibility through his intelligence, virtue, and good will, all of which he had to establish through his discourse. READING: ASSESSING ETHOS Intelligence: indicated by experience or special knowledge; best indication may be in careful, well-

reasoned arguments. (1) Has the writer used arguments that sound reasonable? *Convincing? *Based on ideas that make sense? *Ideas follow each other in a logical way? (2) Has the writer overstated the case using inappropriate exaggeration? *Words too strong? *Details or examples that are outlandish? *Assertions carefully qualified? (3) Has the writer allowed for doubts and uncertainties? (4) Has the writer acknowledged other viewpoints? *Differing viewpoints recognized as valid and worthy of discussion?

ARGUMENT: gives primary importance to logical appeals (logos)

PERSUASION: introduces the element of ethical (ethos) and emotional (pathos) appeals. Argument is the logos portion of persuasion.

19

Virtue and Good Character: indicated by identifying with the values and interests of the audience (1) Has the writer compared himself and his case to persons of known integrity? *Writer’s ideas connected with honest and sincere persons and situations? (2) Has the writer placed the issue within a larger moral framework?

*Example: If discussing women’s rights, has the author placed that issue within the larger one of human rights, thereby adding to the significance of the issue?

(3) Has the writer stated his beliefs, values, and priorities in connection with the issue? *Example: If he has discussed women’s rights, has he made it clear that he believes in the rights of all human beings? *If he has discussed the right to vote, has he made it clear that he believes in the tenets of a democratic form of government?

Goodwill: indicated by presenting oneself as genuine and sincere

(1) Has the writer acknowledged and given careful consideration to the audience’s viewpoint?

(2) Has the writer reviewed points of agreement? *Example: If trying to persuade the audience to vote for a bond issue to support schools, does the writer point out that good education is our investment in the future and that in a democracy equal opportunities for education should be open to all children?

(3) Has the writer reminded the audience of their common interests and concerns? *For example, in connection with a school bond issue, has the writer reminded the audience that better schools will bring in new business and in many ways improve the quality of life in the community?

(4) Has the writer demonstrated that he respects and acknowledges the audience’s intelligence, sincerity, and common sense?

*For example, has he made an effort to present sound arguments not based on prejudice or banalities? *Has the writer: -avoided trivialities? -answered doubts and questions that the audience might have? -presented his ideas clearly and in an organized fashion? *Is the writer free of mechanical errors in spelling and punctuation and in a form that is easy to read and that will not offend the intelligence of the audience or detract from what he is saying?

WRITING: ACQUIRING ETHOS

(1) Submit evidence of careful research, demonstrating that you have been conscientious in finding the best authorities, giving credit, and attempting to arrive at the truth;

(2) Adopt a thoughtful and judicious tone that reflects a desire to be fair in your conclusion (3) Concede where appropriate and applicable.

20

PATHOS: Emotional Appeal

Motivating Readers Moving Readers Pathos is an important element in creating rapport with the audience. With pathos, the writer often tries to build his argument or position on a commonality of purpose, belief, principle, value, or idea that he assumes his audience shares with him and with each other. It can be positive or negative. For example, presumably, all Americans share a belief in freedom and individual rights (positive appeal); conversely, all Americans have a fear of losing that freedom and those individual rights (negative appeal). READING: ASSESSING PATHOS (1) Does the writer rely more on emotion than logic to advance the argument?

(2) Does the writer motivate and move his readers honestly or does he manipulate his audience with emotion?

WRITING: ACQUIRING PATHOS (1) Establish rapport with your audience through honest emotional appeal. (2) Do not present overly positive or overly negative words or statements in an effort to

mislead your audience or detract from your argument. (3) Avoid extremes and loaded language.

LOGOS: Logical Appeal

Logos is the reasons given and explained for the argument or position. It is comprised of three parts: *Claim *Evidence *Warrant CLAIMS: Proposition, Proposal, Assertion, Thesis, Argument

FACT: asserts that a condition has existed, exists, or will exist; based on facts or data that the audience will accept as being objectively verifiable. Not all facts are matters for argument. Examples: Most of the students in this class live outside of the city limits.

Students who take their courses Pass/Fail make lower grades than those who take them for specific grades.

Bilingual programs are more effective than English only programs in preparing students for higher education.

Students who are involved in extracurricular activities acquire better time management skills.

21

DEFENDING A CLAIM OF FACT (1) Be sure that the claim—what you are trying to prove—is clearly stated,

preferably at the beginning of your paper.

(2) Define terms that may be controversial or ambiguous. For example, in trying to prove that “radicals” had captured the student government, you would have to define “radicals,” distinguishing them from “liberals” or members of other ideological groups, so that your readers would understand what you meant.

(3) As much as possible, make sure evidence—facts and opinion, or interpretations of facts—fulfills the appropriate criteria. The data should be sufficient, accurate, recent, typical; the authorities should be reliable.

(4) Make clear when conclusions about the data are inferences or interpretations, not facts. For example, you might write, “The series of lectures, ‘Modern Architecture,’ sponsored by our fraternity, was poorly attended because the students at this college aren’t interested in discussions of art.” What proof could you offer that this WAS the reason, that your statement was a FACT? Perhaps there were other reasons that you hadn’t considered.

(5) Arrange your evidence in order to emphasize what is most important. Place it at the beginning or the end, the most emphatic position in any essay, and devote more space to it.

VALUE: attempts to prove that some things are more or less desirable than others; expresses approval or disapproval of standards of taste and morality; probably cannot change or dispute tastes, preferences, or strongly held values or beliefs; the two most controversial areas are aesthetics (beauty, fine arts) and morality (rightness and wrongness of conduct). Examples: Democracy is superior to any other form of government.

Killing animals for sport is wrong.

The Sam Rayburn Building in Washington is an aesthetic failure.

DEFENDING A CLAIM OF VALUE (1) Try to make clear that the values or principles you are defending should have

priority on any scale of values. Keep in mind that you and your readers may differ about their relative importance. For example, although your readers may agree with you that brilliant cinematography is important in a film, they may think that a well-written script is even more crucial to its success.

(2) Suggest that adherence to the values you are defending will bring about good results in some specific situation or bad results if respect for the values is ignored. You might argue, for example, that a belief in freedom of the press will make citizens better informed and the country stronger while a failure to protect this freedom will strengthen the forces of authoritarianism.

(3) Since value terms are abstract, use examples and illustrations to clarify meanings and make distinctions. (e.g., comparisons and contrasts)

(4) Use testimony of others to prove that knowledgeable or highly regarded people share your values.

22

POLICY: asserts that specific policies should be instituted as solutions to problems; usually includes expressions SHOULD, MUST, or OUGHT TO in the statement; you may need to first convince your audience that a problem exists; therefore, you may need to make and support a factual claim and refer to values that support your claim. Examples: Voluntary prayer should be permitted in public schools. Uniforms should be introduced in all public schools.

A law should permit sixteen-year-olds and parents to “divorce” each other in cases of extreme incompatibility.

Mandatory jail terms should be imposed for drunk driving violations. DEFENDING A CLAIM OF POLICY

(1) Make your proposal clear. The terms in the proposal should be precisely defined.

(2) If necessary, establish that there is a need for a change. If changes have been ignored or resisted, there may be good or at least understandable reasons why this is so. (It is often wrongly assumed that people cling to cultural practices long after their significance and necessity have eroded. But rational human beings do not continue to observe practices unless those practices serve a purpose. The fact that you and I may see no value or purpose in the activities of another is irrelevant.)

(3) Consider the opposing arguments. You may want to state the opposing arguments in a brief paragraph in order to answer them in the body of your argument.

(4) Devote the major part of your essay to proving that your proposal is an answer to the opposing arguments and that there are distinct benefits for your readers in adopting your proposal.

(5) Support your proposal with solid data, but don’t neglect the moral considerations and the common-sense reasons, which may be even more persuasive.

23

TYPES OF SUPPORT: EVIDENCE APPEALS TO NEEDS APPEALS TO VALUES

*ALL CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED!!*

Support: consists of the materials used by the arguer to convince an audience that his or her claim is sound.

Factual Evidence: Evidence

Statistics (Be careful - statistics do not lie, but some statisticians do!)

“There are three kinds of [falsehoods]: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” -Mark Twain

Opinions: Your interpretation of the facts

(1) may suggest the cause for a condition or a causal connection between two sets of data

(2) may offer predictions about the future

(3) may suggest solutions to a problem

Expert Opinion

-Someone who is considered an expert can present opinions based on his/her expertise.

WARRANT: an assumption or belief we take for granted; a general principle; a guarantee or

justification; may be stated or implied.

Warrants reflect our observations, our personal experience, and our participation in a culture. As a result, THE AUDIENCE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE WARRANTS OR ASSUMPTIONS OF THE WRITER. Warrants guarantee a connecting link—a bridge—between the claim and the support evidence. Even if the reader agrees that the support is sound, the support cannot prove the validity of the claim unless the reader also agrees with the underlying warrant.

IF THE READER DOES NOT BUY THE WARRANT, HE WILL NOT BUY THE CLAIM!

All claims, formal and informal, are grounded in warrants or assumptions that the audience must share with us IF OUR CLAIMS ARE TO PROVE ACCEPTABLE.

24

TYPES OF WARRANTS:

Authority: depends on the credibility of the sources

Generalization: based on the belief that we can drive a general principle from a series of examples

Sign: arguer offers an observable datum as an indicator of a condition

Cause and Effect: assumes that one event or condition can bring about another

Comparison: comparing characteristics and circumstances in two or more cases to prove that what is true in one case ought to be true in another

Analogy: assumes a resemblance in some characteristics between dissimilar things; analogies differ in their power to persuade; some are explanatory while others merely descriptive

Warrants may also reflect needs and values, and readers accept or reject the claim to the extent that they find the warrants relevant to their own goals and standards.

READING: ASSESSING LOGOS

Claim: Writer’s position *Explicit or implicit? *Clearly stated or implied?

Evidence: Writer’s support for position *Up to date? *Relevant? *Valid authority? *Specific or too general? *Based on fact or assumption? *Unsubstantiated facts, inferences, details, authorities? *Warranted? *Representative examples? *Consistent with experiences of audience?

Warrant: Writer’s assumptions *Implied or stated? *Acceptable? *Backing where necessary?

25

Substantive Warrants

are based on beliefs about the reliability of factual inform

ation.

W

A

R

R

A

N

T S

Motivational W

arrants are based on the values of the arguer and the audience

Authoritative W

arrants are based on the credibility of a source

Type of W

arrant:

An A

nalogy Warrant is a

substantive warrant that

assumes a resem

blance in som

e characteristics between

dissimilar things.

A C

omparison W

arrant is a substantive w

arrant that assum

es that what is true in

one case ought to be true in another.

A C

ause and E

ffect Warrant

is a substantive warrant that

assumes that one event or

condition can bring about another.

A Sign W

arrant is a substantive w

arrant based on the belief that an observable datum

is an indicator of a particular condition.

A G

eneralization Warrant

is a substantive warrant

based on the belief that it is possible to derive a general principle from

a series of exam

ples.

SUBT

YP

E

CLA

IM: Sports have becom

e the secular religion of A

merica

(Harry Edw

ards)

CLA

IM: T

he United States

should set an annual budget for physician spending; then let doctors do their w

ork.

CLA

IM: G

iving free food to poor countries can be counter- productive.

CLA

IM: Press reports and T

V

news program

s deal in lies and deception.

CLA

IM: M

arijuana is a potent m

edicine for relief of pain in seriously ill patients.

CLA

IM: People in this country

work too hard to enjoy G

od and fam

ily.

CLA

IM: C

igarette smoking is

harmful.

EX

AM

PL

E

Both sports and religion have gods, saints, houses of w

orship, and “true believers”

This practice has enabled

Canada to save m

oney w

ithout reducing the pay of doctors.

Poor farmers plant few

er crops if farm

ing becomes

unprofitable.

Recently N

BC faked exploding

gas tanks in an expose of GM

trucks. In the past, journalists greatly exaggerated the dangers of dioxin and radon.

In controlled experiments,

marijuana has reduced severe

side effects and pain of illness and cancer therapy in several patients.

Am

ericans work 20 percent

more today than in 1973 and

have 32 percent less free tim

e per week.

The surgeon general has

determined that cigarette

smoking is hazardous to your

health.

SUP

PO

RT

The feelings of veneration for

the spectacle and values of sports are analogous to the feelings of adherents of form

al religion.

Because this practice is successful in C

anada, it should be successful in the U

nited States.

People will lack incentive to

provide for themselves if

others provide for them.

Such fakery is a sign of the deceptive practices of the m

edia.

What w

as true for the patients in the experim

ents will

undoubtedly be true for many

more.

Work should not be an end in

itself but a means to enjoym

ent of “m

ental culture, moral and

social progress, and the Arts

of Living.” (J. S. Mill)

The surgeon general is a

reliable medical authority.

WA

RR

AN

T

Is the analogy explanatory or m

erely descriptive? A

re there sufficient similarities

between the tw

o elements to

make the analogy appropriate?

Are the dissim

ilarities between

the things being compared

greater than the similarities?

Have all or only a few

of the im

portant characteristics been com

pared?

Is the cited cause sufficient to bring about the effect? H

ave other possible causes been overlooked?

Is the sign appropriate? Is the sign sufficient? D

o other indicators dispute the sign?

Are the exam

ples representative of the w

hole group being described? H

ave contradictory examples

been ignored?

Might som

e people disagree w

ith the arguer’s values? Is the value relevant to the claim

?

Could the authority be

mistaken in this case?

Do other reputable authorities

disagree?

CR

ITIC

AL

QU

EST

ION

S

26

The Classical Argumentative Scheme

PART I: Introductory Paragraph

• Catch Interest • Present the issue or topic with a concrete image or anecdote • Provide any relevant background information • Define pertinent terms • State your claim (or thesis statement)

PART II: Concession and Refutation

• A writer’s credibility (ethos) depends on expertise in the subject; hence, to ignore the other side of the controversial issue is dangerous. The concession/refutation first briefly recognizes and then at length argues against opposing viewpoints, perhaps by finding weaknesses within the opposing reasons, facts, testimony, or logical development. In other words, it is the “yes…but” part of the argument. “Yes” is the concession; “but” is the refutation. Concession and refutation allow writers to grant validity to or acknowledge opposing views; however, they must demonstrate that their claims are more valid. Writers may choose to concede and refute within introductory paragraphs or throughout body paragraphs as they introduce each new premise. Ideas of concession often appear as subordinated thoughts in dependent clauses of the syntax.

PART III: Confirmation

• The confirmation is the most important and the longest section of the argument, for it provides the reasons and the evidence of a writer’s claim. The confirmation section is the body of the essay that shows the logical development of the argument. The confirmation should include not only logical reasons and evidence but also emotional appeals to human needs or values. Furthermore, writers should consciously incorporate the other modes of discourse to develop the logic of their argument (SEE: Modes of Discourse).

PART IV: Concluding Paragraph

• Wrap up the argument • Restate/confirm the claim • Provide a new appeal to needs or values • Enrich with additional commentary • Voice a final plea for readers to take action or to change thinking • Refrain from repeating any information

27

28

Handy Dandy Reference Guide for

ANALYSIS

I. Diction (choice of words)

1. monosyllabic/polysyllabic

2. colloquial

3. formal

4. old-fashioned

5. denotative/connotative

6. concrete/abstract

II. Syntax (sentence structure)

1. sentence length

a. telegraphic/short/medium/long

2. sentence pattern

a. declarative/interrogative/imperative/exclamatory

b. simple/compound/complex/compound-complex

c. loose/cumulative

d. periodic

e. parallel structure

f. rhetorical question

3. repetition/omission

a. asyndeton

b. polysyndeton

c. anaphora

d. epistrophe

29

III. Figurative Language

1. alliteration

2. simile

3. metaphor

4. personification

5. onomatopoeia

6. hyperbole

7. litotes

8. paradox

9. oxymoron

10. pun

11. irony

12. sarcasm

13. antithesis

14. apostrophe

15. allusion

16. symbols

IV. Appeals

1. Ethos

2. Pathos

3. Logos

30

LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL April 16, 1963

*AUTHOR'S NOTE: This response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama (Bishop C. C. J. Carpenter, Bishop Joseph A. Durick, Rabbi Hilton L. Grafman, Bishop Paul Hardin, Bishop Holan B. Harmon, the Reverend George M. Murray. the Reverend Edward V. Ramage and the Reverend Earl Stallings) was composed under somewhat constricting circumstance. Begun on the margins of the newspaper in which the statement appeared while I was in jail, the letter was continued on scraps of writing paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and concluded on a pad my attorneys were eventually permitted to leave me. Although the text remains in substance unaltered, I have indulged in the author's prerogative of polishing it for publication.

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

[1] While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

[2] I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

[3] But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

[4] Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

[5] You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

31

[6] In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

[7] Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

[8] As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

[9] Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-off we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

[10] You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

[11] The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

[12] One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of

32

Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

[13] We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

[14] We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dart of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

[15] You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

[16] Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the

33

segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

[17] Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

[18] Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

[19] Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

[20] I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

[21] Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

[22] We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

[23] I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute

34

misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[24] I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

[25] In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

[26] I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

[27] You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

35

[28] I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

[29] If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

[30] Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

[31] But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

[32] I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some---such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

36

[33] Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

[34] But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

[35] When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

[36] In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

[37] I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious. irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

[38] I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

[39] Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

[40] There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But

37

the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

[41] Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

[42] But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

[43] Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

[44] I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

[45] Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

[46] It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use

38

immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

[47] I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. There will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. There will be the old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." There will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

[48] Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

[49] If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

[50] I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

39