I haven't gotten quite through all three chapters yet, but what I've read so far has certainly peaked my interest. I think she's so right when she says, "Indeed, to dissent is to risk being thought unpatriotic" (1). It seems for a number of years that we only hear from one side. There's been a lot said on the issue of abortion, but it has been fairly one-sided. She goes on to say, "Discussion of civic issues stalls repeatedly at this moment in American history because it takes place in a discursive climate dominated by two powerful discourses: liberalism and Christian fundamentalism" (2). Liberals tend to battle with reason, and the Fundamentalists with fire and passion. Somehow that fire and passion has outwitted the reason, and I believe Crowley is saying that is because reason doesn't fight on the same level as passion. She talks about deeply held beliefs bonding tightly with the bodies of believers. Next to that the cerebral approach is cool and perhaps less effective. I know when I firmly believe something it's easier to simply let fly than to try to reason through my argument.
I also began wondering about this in relation to something we discussed this week in a rhetorical criticism class, that being Fantasy Theme. I don't know that it exactly fits, but there are certain elements here. The fact that the fundamentalists all hold to one belief, and that belief is the only important fact. Any other information is pales in comparison to this belief system. It also made me wonder about Hitler. Yeah, I said Hitler. Think about it, he was one hell of leader who was capable of pulling people together under one belief: that they were better than the rest of the world. If I believed that I was "saved" and that meant I would go to heaven when all others would go the opposite direction, I could believe that I, and my ideals, were superior to others. There is something very compelling about considering yourself a part of an elite group. The larger the group grows, the more strength they gain.
Cowley brings in rhetoric as a device by which others can once again join into a more diverse conversation about politics. She states, "But as I have said repeatedly, rhetoric does have a major advantage over liberal strategies of argument insofar as it is able to address ideological and emotional claims as well as rational ones" (23). This is an idea that I like. How else does one make a point in a highly emotional argument, but with an emotional appeal. Perhaps we should mix a little emotion in with our reason in order to be heard.
Good book, good points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Fantasy Theme Analysis (FTA) is actually applied to religious communication a lot. FTA understands that human beings aren't strictly rational beings and they may be persuaded by things like narrative. There are few "rational" arguments in favor of some of the positions taken by Christian fundamentalists, so something like Fantasy Theme Analysis is useful for explaining how these groups raise and sustain consciousness around their cause or movement. Discourses such as those used by the abstinence-only education movement or the intelligent design crowd are often brimming with fantasies as they try to gain new recruits and keep the old ones.
Post a Comment