Hwk for March 9th

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

4 March 2015

Project #2 1-4 Parts

            The ability to unite people under the sense of “certainty” has been displayed throughout history. The term we use today to describe how groups of people are influenced by a single condescending authoritarian to polarize towards another group of people is called demagoguery. The issue of demagoguery is discussed in Patricia Robert Miller’s 2005 article, “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.  In her piece she refers to famous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler to reveal how they try to create an in and out group and provide one single solution to the in groups problem. She also states the fallacies they have on their arguments that the common people do not seem to catch onto due to the fact that during those time periods the sense of an answer was being worth listened to. The topic of demagoguery is highlighted in the NRA’S Wayne LaPierre’s 2012 speech concerning the Newtown Tragedy. In his speech he defends the NRA against the angered and dismal parents who are pushing for an increase in gun control. Throughout his speech he provides claims but none as important as these three: that the media is encourages killers to plot and scheme, that by putting a “gun free zone” sign this enables killers to have a target, and finally his main claim is that guns should be instituted in schools and handled by certified people. Through the use of ethos, pathos, and redefinition he tries to persuade his audience in trying to open their minds to how useful guns can really be.

            In LaPierre’s speech, he directs the negative emotions from angered and outraged parents of the victims of Newtown to try to make them realize how guns can prevent future incidents. He starts off his speech on conceding and acknowledging the difficult time the parents are experiencing and begins to build his claims of how his organization can help join the cause of defending against future gun incidents by using their own policy. His attack on the ethics of the victims parents her tries to make them realize how their anger towards guns is misleading. With the use of Robert Miller’s piece we will use her text as a lens on analyzing the strengths and weakness of Lapierre’s piece y using the definition of Millers’ “good public discourse” but also on how he builds his argument through ethos, pathos, and redefinition.

            In Lapierre’s speech he gains form of a demagogue by the use of several aspects of demagoguery. His prime use of polarization enables him to reinforce his central claim of how guns should be allowed into schools. In Robert Miller’s eyes she define polarization by “presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one.” She believes that through the use of polarization it “contributes to stereotyping and racism.” She states this because the use of polarization creates a divide between the in group and out group and that line creates prejudice and hatred toward one another. Even though she disagrees with this assessment LaPierre uses this form of demagoguery to argue how armed professionals at a school are the solution to the problem. He states in his speech how “ the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun… bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away… or a minute away.” His proposed ideology fits Miller’s definition because LaPierre proclaims how ethically just and right it truly is and because all parents want their children to be safe. His counter argument to his audience of how dangerously things can be on how far a “good person” is away from an incident emphasizes the “impractical” side. But through his eyes he believes that there are only two choices and that is why he presents them to his audience. He attacks his audiences ethics because his organization is facing heavy criticism and realizes how he can only make the use of guns morally right for the sake of the children safety. He continues to ensure that his audience his with him by questioning his audience and making them realize that his solution is the only real way for progress. When he states, “if we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible… properly trained- armed- and good guy.” This statement attacks his audience’s priorities and realigns their viewpoints on what truly is most important.  The prior quote reaffirms Millers definition because even though LaPierre isn’t trying to make another solution, but rather he was still trying to establish how his audiences importance of protection for materialistic things is such at a high standard; that those same standards should be applied to their children who they care for a whole lot more. The ability to readjust their viewpoint is essential in rallying support for his solution. His proclaimed mater plan of installing a “ National School Shield Emergency Response Program,” illustrates what he wants to do for his audience but also provides this one; and only, solution to these incidents. The ability to show his audience a plan to prevent mass shootings may of gained popular support due to the recent shooting and enabled him to unhook himself from being the poster boy of guns but rather a solution maker. The program statement helped him gain credibility from his audience but he did that by attacking their own throughout the process. By attacking his audiences morals and ethics he allowed himself to install the only solution to the problem but also created an in group and out group which creates a major divide between his audience. The line creates a form of racism which a problem that Miller warned against.

            Another form of demagoguery LaPierre utilizes is ingroup/outgroup as well as demonization. He is able to use ingroup/outgroup thinking by previously using polarization and from there he is able to separate his audience from who’s with him and who’s against him. This is critical because his sppech will gear itself toward the emotions of the ingroup to rally and support his cause (solution). According to Miller she define outgroup/ingroup thinking and demonization as a “common way for people to view the world: there are some people whom we think of as like us in some important regard, and others who are very different from us in some equally important regard.” She is trying to reveal how demagogues try to make their audiences see the world around them how they interpret the world. She believes this is problematic because this enables people to see a population as a “subhuman” and create a “high and low ground.” This dehumanization will create affect society in a negative way, which is speculated by Miler. In LaPierre’s speech he centrally creates an in-group by stating, “ Those who exploit the tragedy for political gain, directing anger and noise at NRA while doing nothing to solve the problem vs. the NRA… committed to real solutions.” This assertion quickly reveals how the people inside the NRA are the in-group trying to reach out to the victims parents who are the out-group.  He is slowly carving out his members and deciphering whom else he can possibly recruit and agree to his claims. The ability to create one type of thinking creates a uniform, universal pedigree, and association that brings together his in-group even tighter. His beginnings of demonizing people who commit these atrocities starts off in line eight by calling them “monsters, predators, and the mentally ill.” The demonizing creates an inferior group, who are the people who commit mass shootings but also people who seem not to believe in the prime solution. The ingroup consist of the NRA and believers of the prime plan. The use of these dehumanizing words can help the in group associate this jargon towards the people against them and unite these toward the cause. Another way he uses demonization is by installing fearful pathos by saying “They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school.” The use of this intimidating and terrifying emotional language creates a higher ground (in group) and puts these people at the bottom of the pyramid (out group) and makes the audience leave the speech being suspicious and fearful from strangers that are around them. The frightened emotion that his audience most likely would have felt makes them side with the in group because they do not want to be considered belonging with the demonizing group. The unwanted switch of his audience accomplished his goal of trying to make them see the world but also the people around themselves as how he does. This is problematic to Miller because this huge divide now creates a further strain on society as a whole but also subjugates people and dehumanizes them as well.        

                      

                

Assignment #2 LaPierre Intro

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

4 March 2015

LaPierre Intro

            The ability to unite people under the sense of “certainty” has been displayed throughout history. The term we use today to describe how groups of people are influenced by a single condescending authoritarian to polarize towards another group of people is called demagoguery. The issue of demagoguery is discussed in Patricia Robert Miller’s 2005 article, “ Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.” She discusses in her piece refers to famous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler to reveal how they try to create an in and out group and provide one single solution to the in groups problem. She also states the fallacies they have on their arguments that the common people do not seem to catch onto due to the fact that during those time periods the sense of an answer was being worth listened to. The topic of demagoguery is highlighted in the NRA’S Wayne LaPierre’s 2012 speech concerning the Newtown Tragedy. In his speech he defends the NRA against the angered and dismal parents who are pushing for an increase in gun control. Throughout his speech he provides claims but none as important as these three: that the media is encourages killers to plot and scheme, that by putting a “gun free zone” sign this enables killers to have a target, and finally his main claim is that guns should be allowed to be instituted in schools and handled by certified people. Through the use of pathos, ethos, and redefinition he tries to persuade his audience in trying to open their minds to how useful guns can really be.

Robert Miller Reflection Paper

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

2 March 2015

Robert Miller’s “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric” Reflection Paper

            According to Robert Miller, he defines “demagoguery” as “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and.. “an escape from freedom.” His other definition of scapegoating is “deny[ing] responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. His definition of polarization is “those who are not with us are against us” also that “membership in the outgroup is defined simply by not being in the ingroup.”  He defines outgroup and in group thinking by how “polarization is relian[t] on ingroup and outgroup thinking.” He states how the group’s common views on the world help bring demagogues to power. The “Simple Solution’s” is how the “major function is to demonstrate loyalty to the threatened group.” That is for the commoners in the threatened group to protect their attacked group. Victimization is defined by Miller as passing on prior judgment or abuse onto another group, which further pins social groups against one another.

            Miller believes that an argument based solely on “scapegoating” and “polarization” etc. leads to an unfixable division between the “ingroup” and “outgroup.” The division begins by creating a sense of “us” and “them” as well as if they are not “with us they are against us.” The inability to be open-minded creates the hatred from the inner group and enables them to assert the blame on the outer group for prior prejudices they have encountered. Then they are unified under a demagogue who utilizes this hatred to his/her advantage to manipulate his followers by undermining them to follow their policies through their loyalty. But also the use of these words creates an “infection,” that needs “medicinal” practices to help cure the disease that was helped spread by the promise of “certainty” by the demagogue.

            One fallacy Miller believes that is a violation to the “standards of public discourse” is the very first one she describes. She states that, “ Parties should not prevent each other from advancing standing points or casting doubt on standpoints… try to prevent disagreement from happening at all.” She thinks this violates “public discourse” because it restricts the opposing sides to speak on behalf of their thoughts as well as the protective side trying to resolve the issue with only their bias without the bias of the opposing side. The rejection of opposing ideas leads to the division I mentioned earlier that is used by demagogues.

            One example of this first fallacy Miller talks about is present in LaPierre’s piece. Throughout his piece he specifically states only one possible solution to the problem of mass shootings. His proposal of the “National School Shield Response Program,” illustrates how he is quick to propose a solution without allowing further argumentation or the chance for disagreement. By imposing this only solution onto his audience he elicits himself as a demagogue that is trying to create a division between of “either you are with me or you are against me.” The proposal is persuasive but has holes due to the fact he is trying to eliminate any prior or current ideology of any person and only present his piece as the only viable source.

            One characteristic in LaPierre’s piece that conforms to a demagogic discourse is the use of scapegoating. The criticism the NRA is taking enables LaPierre to use this type of discourse. His “innergroup” (gun users) place the blame onto the media and the usage of violent video games to alter the mindsets of many outraged parents and citizens. The NRA is trying to due the “curative process” and disassociates themselves from the possible reasons for mass shootings by passing the blame onto objects like “Kindergarten Killers” and “the press” as the real problems. But by proposing a solution for the problem his argument is flawed because it reveals how he might of felt a sense of the blame but his audience does not pick up on this because the emotional connection this extract from his speech distracts them from this slip up.      

LaPierre's Reflection Paper

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

25 February 2015

LaPierre’s Reflection Paper

            In the transcript of NRA’s LaPierre speech on the Newtown Tragedy he states three claims in his piece. One of his claims is that the media attributes to the, “ provoking others to try to make their mark.” The number of violent video games that are present in today’s society supports this claim. For example, “Kindergarten Killers,” illustrates how Adam Lanza, or anybody by that nature, could have been lured to trying or experiencing this kind of horrific gesture of trying to relive a moment played on a video claim. The examples of present day video games is one of his strategies on trying to illuminate how society has played a huge role on influencing people’s minds on cruel acts. Another claim LaPierre states is that every school in America or the world in that matter should be guarded by individuals who posses a firearm. His challenge to his audience’s ethics is a useful strategy to call to play their morals and ethics. When describing how we protect many institutions he reveals how we leave our, “children… defenseless.” The use of this comparison evokes his audience to fully understand the importance of firearms in school grounds because he is trying to convey that guns are actually effective ways of defense. He also states how there should be a mental database of “mentally ill.” This assertion emphasizes the desire of trying to eliminate any possible causes or recurrences of any mass shootings. The ability to eliminate or disable the ability of any of these people to get a gun will prevent mass murders, which LaPierre is stating.

            Some strengths of his argument are that he uses ethos and pathos effectively to connect to his audience emotionally and ethically. The ability to connect and evoke his audience through these appeals enables him to have a clear plan on stopping these types of horrific incidents.  The duration he took to give his defense of the NRA shows his concern and grief for the families but also shows the time and thought it took to build a qualified defense against many outraged parents and people.

            A couple of weakness I saw with this piece is that he assumed everyone was against the NRA, which may of lead to an overgeneralization in piece. But also his claim of allowing individuals having a gun in a “innocent” infrastructure also can lead to some complications. That individual may have passed protocol but they may still been infested with prior video game experience and attack innocent children as well.     

Final Draft

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

23 February 2015

Analyzing the Two Texts “The Muslim woman” by Abu-Lughod and “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering” by Haysan Haydar

            The issue of the veil on Muslim woman is a very controversial topic. Many people argue that it is oppression and sexist while others see it as a foundation of everyday life. There are two authors who argue for the first claim but argue for it in different ways. In the chapter from her 2003 book Body Outlaws, “ Veiled Intentions: don’t judge a muslim girl by her covering,” Maysan Haydar argues that the veil, that many Muslim women wear, is a choice and not oppression put on them by men. She wrote this text almost right after 9/11 when most Americans were frightened toward Muslim women who had this garment on. The sense of isolation by these women prompted Haydar to respond to these misconceptions and reveal to the general American public that the veil is a way of life for these women and is not to be seen as an oppressive tool. She also describes how Western values are out of sync as compared to the Middle East which creates a disconnect between the two cultures. She tries to patch this relationship by evoking a sense of unity and togetherness by the way she approaches this touchy topic. However, in her 2006 online scholarly article, “ The Muslim woman,” senior anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod writes during the Iraq War and argues that the image we have of veiled women are problematic because they limit our ability to accurately view them for who they are and also it creates a false divide between “us” and “them.” She additionally tries to make her readers realize how there are different social paths to change in the world. Through the use of definition, rebuttal, and ethos both authors try to change or broaden their audiences thinking. Due to Abu-Lughod’s harsh and authoritive tone and limited audience (Western Feminist) her argument makes Haydar’s piece most likely more persuasive to her broad audience and the ability for her to connect to them on a more ethical and emotional level.

            Abu-Lughod and Haydar both try to clear up the misconceptions about the veil throughout their pieces but do so differently. The use of common day language benefits Haydar in creating a better connection with her selected audience as compared to Abu-Lughod who wrote for a very narrow and specific audience. This paper will show how Haydar’s argument is more effective through the use of redefinition, rebuttals and ethos as compared to Abu-Lughod’s who’s sophisticated and educated diction pertains to a more educated audience.  

In Haydar’s and Abu-Loghod’s pieces they redefine how Americans should look at a Muslim Women with their veil and also argue that even though the veil may seem like an oppressive tool, the Western idea of “freedom” is skewed. Many people in the United States were afraid of Muslim Woman after September 11 and the constant judgment of Muslim people persists today. For example in Haydar’s piece, the misconception of “freedom” is constantly skewed to the person’s point of view as the lady on the “New York City bus.” She saw the “jilbah” the woman was wearing and configured that she was being oppressed by her religion and stated that at least she “, got to be free.”  Her statements reveals how people in general do not take the time to learn the reason behind wearing the veil but are easy to draw an assumption rather quickly. This exact statement is what most likely prompted Haydar to write tis piece because she is trying to clarify how many Muslim women are not oppressed but rather they are their own person. She uses a personal narrative of her personal interests of , “karate,” and “skateboarding” to illustrate how she, herself, is not oppressed by the veil. The “shocked faces” that looked at Haydar when she expressed her love for normalcy emphasizes how judgmental people really are towards these women that they do not believe they have hobbies that are similar to theirs. Their exact expressions were possibly a driving force to make Haydar construct her piece. Similar to Haydar, Abu-Lughod also redefines the, “burqa,” to her audience to help them realize the cultural significance behind the use of the garment. Many women in different places in the Middle East are not required to wear a, “burqa,” for example in Bedouin. Women, “cover their faces in certain contexts… don’t veil for younger men,” this example of the women in Bedouin illustrate how their decision to veil in certain situations enables them to be free and assertive in their own life’s. The use of a real day example builds her ethos with her audience because she showed and redefined the image for them inside their heads.  

Both authors use rebuttals to contradict and oppose the opposition’s way of thinking to get heir points across. First off, in Haydar’s piece The West and The Middle East both believe in, “modesty,” but each side interprets the word in a different way. Haydar inserts how the veil to the Muslim culture keeps the women in modest form and respectable but also enables the women to be free from unwanted attention. But in contrast Western society believes that freedom is enabled by wearing whatever he/she choses to wear as long as it is, “modest.” The different interpretations creates a tension between both societies because Their, “priorities are out of line: American women spend hours getting ready for strangers.” This quote emphasizes how too much attention is put on image alone and not on the most important aspect of every human being: their heart. The ability to see the person fully rather than a sexual object is more essential to Haydar and the Muslim world. The rebuttal highlights how despite the different clothing appearance by the Muslim culture they have a right to express themselves and keep their morals intact because they can keep their beauty for treasured individuals as compared to the Westerners.

In Abu-Lughod’s piece she argues for the same intention Haydar does and utilizes rebuttals to reveal how pity toward the Muslim women can be hindering to them. She argues that we stray away from trying to save these women because the very thing we are trying to stop we are imposing on them. Everyone in the world has a different way of thinking and acting but is up to us to be, “aware of different paths in this world.” The claim by Abu-Lughod reveals the tolerance and patience we need to have and preserve to be able to understand one another’s culture. The rebuttal of what we should not be doing towards these women exemplifies how Abu-Lughod believes that the continual visualization we gather from the media disables, “us,” from obtaining the ultimate goal: unity.   

She argues for a different interpretation of freedom between the two cultures. She states how, “Our,” image of the Middle East Women is problematic because it creates a divide between, “us,” and,”them.” This divide restricts us from being one and being united due to our entitlement of, “us,” being superior and the “oppressed” Muslim Women as being, “inferior.” The inability of, “us,” to see their side create this divide and this is why Abu-Lughod most likely wrote this piece toward Western Feminist to slowly but surely break down this divide by trying to listen to one another’s view on things

One major difference between these two authors is how they support their claims with ethos. Haydar uses many personal anecdotes and the overall piece is a personal narrative as contrasted with Abu-Lughod’s piece it is more researched based. The anecdotes creates many overgeneralizations onto her audience which makes her general American public to question her creditability as compared to Abu-Lughod her research solidifies her claims more effectively. Despite the overgeneralizations put onto her audience Haydar’s ability to connect to her audience enables her to connect to them more substantially and at a more personal level. The every day language employed by her allows anyone to read her piece and reconsider his/her previous thoughts about veiling.

The cultural significance of these two authors pieces is to change, not only local, but also the global perspective on how people view the “veil” many Muslim Women wear. The veils are not merely a disguise; but are a way for these women to express themselves as a whole person rather than being judged by their physical attributes.  The quicker the misconception is erased the better society will be due to the fact that many people will respect these women more and become more tolerant of their practices. I, for one, did not realize that the “veil” was a choice purposed to these women but rather due to the media and “our” intolerant views I shunned the idea of concealing a women’s beauty. But due to these texts I was able to see the misconception I had and I was able to reconsider my judgments and place myself into their situations. Both authors argued for tolerance but connected to their audiences differently. The ability to use everyday language and the personal narratives by Haydar enabled her to connect to her audience more likely than Abu-Lughod due to her higher vocabulary and strict division between the “superior ideology” versus the inferior ideology.” The ability to relate to her audience makes her audience to continue reading, but despite that, the use of overgeneralizations limited Haydar’s ability to unanimously win over her whole audience.    

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “The Muslim Woman.” Eurozine.nv. 2006.Web. 14 January 2015.

Haydar, Maysan. “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering.” Viewpoints. Ed. W. Royce Adams, 7^th ed. Boston, Wadsworth, 2010. (183-88).