Your Word for the Day

oligarchy |ˈäliˌgärkē, ˈōli-| nouna small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution:oligarchic |ˌäliˈgärkik, ˌōli- | adjective ,oligarchical |ˌäliˈgärkikəl, ˌōli- | adjective,oligarchically |ˌäliˈgärkik(ə)lē, ˌōli- |adverb


From Aristotle, emphasis mine.
A Democracy is a form of government under which the citizens distribute the offices of state among themselves by lot, whereas under oligarchy there is a property qualification, under aristocracy one of education. By education I mean that education which is laid down by the law; for it is those who have been loyal to the national institutions that hold office under an aristocracy. These are bound to be looked upon as "the best men," and it is from this fact that this form of government has derived its name ("the rule of the best"). Monarchy, as the word implies, is the constitution in which one man has authority over all. There are two forms of monarchy: kingship, which is limited by prescribed conditions, and "tyranny," which is not limited by anything.

We must also notice the ends which the various forms of government pursue, since people choose in practice such actions as will lead to the realization of their ends. The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the tyrant. It is clear, then, that we must distinguish those particular customs, institutions, and interests which tend to realize the ideal of each constitution, since men choose their means with reference to their ends. But rhetorical persuasion is effected not only by demonstrative but by ethical argument; it helps a speaker to convince us, if we believe that he has certain qualities himself, namely, goodness, or goodwill towards us, or both together. Similarly, we should know the moral qualities characteristic of each form of government, for the special moral character of each is bound to provide us with our most effective means of persuasion in dealing with it. We shall learn the qualities of governments in the same way as we learn the qualities of individuals, since they are revealed in their deliberate acts of choice; and these are determined by the end that inspires them."

Silly Post. It's Friday. This is my dog.

Asking a Rhetorical Question

I am taking a new class, boys and girls.  This one is called Rhetoric and Media Arts.  I feel like it will be worth posting my thoughts and my findings here, since I haven’t really written much about politics, but I am still browsing the web and finding cool things.  This might end up being a kind of “flavor of the class” blog.  Do you love me no matter what?

The truth is, after our class on Monday, I felt like I lost my handle on this topic.  I thought I knew what rhetoric was, but perhaps I have been mistaken.  A little background first, some part of my undergraduate degree was in communications studies.  When we talked about rhetoric in those classes, we were concerned mostly with the idea of persuasion.  What tools can you use to get someone to see and do something you desired?  We talked about communication models that pulled apart sender, message and receiver.  We talked about what “noise,” cultural and physical there may be to disrupt the transmission of your message.  I managed to lump all of this together with the study of rhetoric.  I am pretty sure I am not where I need to be and that I have no real idea what the study of rhetoric entails.  Since my first homework assignment is to right this wrong, I have to go to Google.

I hate that I always start with Wikipedia.  Oh, sure!  I tell myself that this is what most people do: start with the basics and go from there.  Still, I wish there were something a little more reliable.  The entry about Rhetoric started me thinking about rhetoric now vs. ancient rhetoric.  I have made a mental note to find out more about Kenneth Burke.  I am starting to feel excited about our rhetorical decisions around political phrases like “undocumented workers vs. illegal aliens.”  There’s a lot here to play with.

Since I still feel like I am just dancing on the surface of this thing, I was very excited to find this video out on YouTube.  It has the rather amusing title "In Defense of Rhetoric: No Longer Just for Liars".  That brought me in, but I stayed for the full 14 minutes because it is a very good video.  There is a lot here that gets at the heart of rhetoric.  Balancing the message, tools for that message and the intended audience all while marinating your image.  I think I am starting to understand what got me muddled to begin with because of this video.  I appreciate the idea that rhetoric is how we come to understand our world, not just the arguments we have.

While I was out playing on YouTube, I also stumbled on this video.  The wonderful thing about this piece is that it attempts to dissect the use of persuasive language in Obama’s televised speech after the death of Osama bin Laden.  The reviewer notes the mise en scene, the movements of the speaker, as well as the types of words used and when during the speech.  This is the first time I have seen this kind of dissection.  Why is Obama using his hands here, but not before?  Why an emotional plea at the beginning?  Why tell us the history before simply saying something like “we got him!” and calling it a day?  Very interesting.

One more, sublimely silly, example of rhetoric comes to us from the fine folks at HuffPost.  In their daily column called “Good News” they are offering up a pictorial argument that suggests everyone should have a dog.  Entitled “21 Reasons A Dog Is The Best Investment You Will Ever Make,” I am adding it here because I enjoy the structure of the argument.  It begins with “are you tired of being let down by life?”  That moves through emotional appeal after emotional appeal, paired with pictures of dogs loving and being loved by their humans, with the occasional link to the story to match.  The “21 reasons” title is a lovely rhetorical device.  “Steps” and things that can be numbered feel very logical and pragmatic.  The last “step” is, of course, to do yourself a favor and follow a link to adopt from the ASPCA.  It's manipulative and brilliant.  I love it.

That wasn't a rhetorical question, but the way.  Do you love me no matter what?  Because this could get interesting.