The main object of this course is to acquaint you with practical means of interpreting strategic discourse. A useful approach to this problem, in my view, is to consider instances of strategic discourse production from the perspective of a general theory about how strategic discourse ought to be produced. Now, for well over two thousand years, the standard theory that guided the production of strategic discourse was rhetoric. Accordingly, as a preliminary to our investigations of discourse practice, I would like to introduce some traditional concepts in rhetorical theory. We will not slavishly follow these theoretical concepts during the course, but they will serve as useful touchstones as we proceed.
As a historical matter, rhetoric developed mainly as a theory of the kinds of discourse and the functions of the speaker in making discourse.
I. The kinds of discourse were traditionally identified as forensic, deliberative, and epideictic or demonstrative.
A. Forensic discourse was conceived as courtroom speaking and was divided into speeches with two functions.
1. Speeches of accusation asserted that someone had broken the law and should be punished.
2. Speeches of defense rebutted assertions that someone broke the law or deserved punishment.
B. Deliberative discourse was conceived as giving political advice in a legislature or some other advisory venue; its speeches were understood to represent the two sides on every political issue.
1. Hortatory speeches were in favor of change.
2. Dissuasive speeches opposed change.
C. Epideictic or demonstrative discourse was not conceived in a particular place; rather it was more associated with particular occasions, socio-cultural or political events such as funerals, inaugurations, conventions, and the like, all of which called for speechmaking involving praise and blame.
1. Speeches of encomium praised someone or something.
2. Speeches of vituperation blamed someone or something.
II. Functions of discourse makers (or speaker) were generally identified as five in number: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.
A. Invention was the function involved with finding and selecting things to talk about in a speech; it was generally identified with three activities.
1. Intellection was an activity that speakers undertook at the beginning of the invention process. It involved thinking about the sorts of things the speaker needed to say in the speech and the sorts of arguments that might work in the situation.
2. Discovery was an activity wherein the speaker developed the materials suggested by intellection stage of the process. That is, the speaker actually worked out all the possible arguments and other speech contents that were possible in the case at hand.
3. Judgment was an activity wherein the speaker selected which of the arguments and other speech contents would be used in the final speech.
B. Arrangement was the speaker function which placed ideas and arguments in a presentable order; typically such order was conceived in two categories.
1. Quantitative order organized the whole speech into functional parts--one division was introduction, narration, proof, conclusion.
a. The introduction was supposed to make the audience attentive, benevolent, and intelligent.
b. The narration was supposed to set out facts in a way that helped the speaker's subsequent arguments.
c. The proof was supposed to secure assent to the speaker's point of view throught logical argumentation about the subject matter.
d. The conclusion was supposed remind the audience of the speaker's arguments, reestablish benevolence, and arouse emotions that would put the audience in a better position to agree with the speaker's position.
2. Logical and psychological orders were designed to arrange discourse at the sub-discourse level, frequently in elements of the standard parts; examples include chronological order in narrative and climactic order of arguments in the proof.
C. Style referred to the expression of the speaker's ordered ideas and arguments in particuar words. The theory of expression was generally articulated with reference to two notions, types or levels of style and qualities of style.
1. The type or level of style referred to different mixtures of thoughts patterns, words uses, and word patterns to achieve different ends.
a. The plain style used simple words, simple word pattern, and mostly direct thought patterns to instruct the audience.
b. The grand style used unusual thought patterns, word use, and word patterns to move the emotions of the audience.
c. The middle style used elements of the the plain and grand style to please the audience.
2. Qualities of style were generally conceived as featurres of every acceptable expression. Four qualities were standard in traditional theory.
a. Correctness was avoiding grammatical error (barbarisms and solecisms) and observing idioms of dialect.
b. Clarity was achieved by using simple words and simple word structures in usual ways.
c. Appropriateness was achieved by making the language of expression suitable to the level of the subject matter, the emotions and character of the speaker, and the sensibilities of the audience.
d. Ornament made the expression attractive through departure from ordinary ways of speaking.
D. Memory referred to the means used to control the speech in the speaker's mind during the period in which the speaker delivered the speech. Natural memory could be used to memorize the speech word for word. Aritifical memory could be used to remind the speaker of the elements of the speech. Generally, artifical memory was taught with reference to two devices, images and backgrounds.
1. Images were "pictorial" representations of speech elements (for example, a light bulb works as a pictorial representation of an idea or invention).
2. Backgrounds were well known places (usually architectural spaces) where the speaker could look for images in a systematic fashion.
E. Delivery was manifestation of the speech through the body of the speaker in spacial proximity with the audience.
1. The voice was responsible for conveying the speaker's language, character, and emotion to the audience.
2. The body supported the language with gestures.
a. The face, especially the eyes, conveyed (and aroused) emotion and established character.
b. Gesture with rest of the body conveyed (and aroused) emotion and established character.
For the purposes of this course we will rely as much on your cultural understanding of speech activities as the traditional theory about kinds of discourse. The fact is that there are far more than six speech activities that culturally cognizant language users know how to perform and understand. Your expectations about what a speaker should do in a campaign speech or a valediction or some other speech activity will be most handy when it is time to interpret the strategies involved with actual speech-making.
The notion that speakers perform functions in making speeches will be extremely useful in this course. The reason for this is, that whatever differences there are in different times, places, and cultures, speakers cannot make speeches unless they find things to say, put them in an order, express them in words, and manifest their ordered ideas in words with their bodies. Accordingly, within this course there will be a particular focus on invention, arrangement, style, and delivery. To update traditional theory and offer you a very definite account of intellection, discovery, and judgment, I will present Stephen Toulmin's layout of arguments from his book, Uses of Argument. The theory of arrangement to which I will appeal is traditional, though modified slightly to account for American practices. The theory of style that I will present will be a modernized version of an ancient theory that advanced beyond the tradition, but was largely forgotten in the West until recently, namely the theory of Hermogenes in his On Types of Style. The theory of delivery that we will use exploits the merits of traditional theory, but focuses on the strategic functions of delivery as opposed to its relation to style (which was the traditional obsession).
Ultimately, perhaps the main idea of this course is that it is useful to interpret strategic discourse through the lens of principles designed to make discourse effective.