neo -aristotelian presentation outline

Anna Avery, Jimena Ramon, Gabriella Gonzalez, Chris Killeen, Ariella VanceRhetorical Criticism

Typed Outline

Conventional Wisdom– Traditional Form– The President’s Message of November 3rd, 1969 Forbes HillBy: Anna Avery, Ariella Vance + Jimena Ramon

Slide 2: “Author + Essay” (Ariella)a. Authorb. The speech being written aboutc. Why he wanted to write a critical analysis using a “strict neo-Aristotelian

criticism”d. Critiques who have analyzed the speech before

i. Other critics of Nixon’s Vietnamization Speech used more nontraditional perspectives to analyze it. This includes Stelzner, Newman, and Campbell, who all believed that President Nixon’s rhetoric disguised the truth, only spoke to a portion of the population, and was not effective in dissecting real American values. Forbes Hill took a different approach and tweaked the neo-Aristotelian method of criticism but still wanted to discern whether or not Nixon used the best situations, examples, and words, to get a certain favorable decision from a specific group of the audience.

Slide 3: Historical Context of Speech (Ariella)a. Basics of the war- why? Refer to other presidents, etc.b. Social stances on war in America

i. The two divided groups—young, rebels who did not want war and older, traditional people who were against communism

ii. By the fall of 1969, the United States had already been at war for four years and of course, like any other war, it was costly and many lives were lost. At the time, many Americans were not exactly sure why the United States was even involved, but it was presumed that our government wanted South Viet Nam to be a stable non-Communistic state that could be used as a sort of buffer between all the Communist areas around it. During this time, there was an uprising of mostly young Americans who were completely against any intervention in Vietnam. This was in stark contrast to the Administration, who were completely for it. The nation, in essence, was divided. The Administration sought to win the war and avoid at all costs, the possibility of forfeiting or giving up a victory. As the Peace Movement orchestrated marches and great demonstrations, President Nixon decided to make an address to the public, which was this speech. The speech was meant to help Nixon garner support for a limited war followed by negotiated peace.


Slide 4: Elements of the Essay (Ariella)a. The artifact is the speech, which is deliberative, and includes an almost

perfect display of the Aristotelian pattern of proem, narrative, proofs that are both constructive and refutative, and an epilogue, all in hopes of affecting those that were not necessarily for or against the war, but those that were impressionable on the subject. Though use of this pattern is widespread, Hill notes that Nixon used it exceptionally, which is actually not that common. Hill covers a multitude of rhetoric ploys that Nixon uses in his speech, including his use of ethos in a narrative manner, to persuade the public that every step that has been taken so far, has been for the greater good and was the right one to make for our ultimate goal. Nixon leads the audience to the epilogue, where he successfully reinforces his claims, invoking, what Hill calls, the right climate of feeling, pushing those that are against his ideology into an isolated and unpopular position. Overall, this speech is one of the better examples of rhetoric because it was so successful, at least for a time.

Slide 5: Disposition + Synopsis: The Aristotelian Pattern (Anna)a. (Disposition) Proem

i. “A preface or preamble to a book or speech”ii. Attempts to close the credibility gap by implying he is going to tell

Americans the truth; a truth that he says that deserve to know when talking about war and peace

b. Narrativei. Appeals to ethos

ii. Foreshadows the proofs c. Proofs

i. Constructive Proofs1. Methods of Residue

ii. Refutative Proofsd. Epilogue

i. “Recapitulation, building of ethos, and reinforcing the climate of feeling”

e. (Synopsis) i. Traditional, but includes two unconventional elements

ii. Purpose language serves to

Slide 6: Logical + Psychological Persuasive Factors: Aristotelian Assessment (Anna)

a. Two types of Premises: predictions and valuesb. States of feelings

Slide 7: Characterological + Stylistic Factors (Anna)a. Values System + Ethosb. Stylistic Elements (Tone)


The Power of Saddam Hussein’s War RhetoricGary w. BrownBy: Chris Killeen + Gabriella Gonzalez

Slide 12: “Author + Essay”a. Authorb. The 5 speeches being written aboutc. The author uses neo-Aristotelian criticism to examine the context in which

the speeches were presented and measure the success of Hussein’s rhetoric for the intended audience.

Slide 13: “Context of Essay”a. The readers (our personal) context when approaching the essay (we’re

approaching the topic with Western ideologies, but Brown is not) b. Understand the cultural context ( historical context about the speeches)

Slide 14: " Research Question”a. Purpose of the essay:

i. How was Hussein’s rhetoric viewed from the perspective of his own people or of the people of Iraq’s neighboring nations? Brown wanted to see if Hussein was persuasive as seen from the eyes of his intended audience. He did this by applying the 5 cannons of rhetoric within the context of the speeches.

Slide 15: “Application of the 5 canons”a. Invention : Brown identifies Hussein’s dependence of the Koran,

traditional Arab tribal laws, and Arab unity against evil western society. i. Koran, Traditional Arab tribal laws, Arab unity against “evil

western society”ii. Appeal to other Arabic nations to help Iraq fight the west because

business would be interrupted. b. Organization: Brown recognized speeches would begin with a quote from

Koran, praise of strength and courage of Iraqis against air raids, tell Iraq’s people they will be victorious, criticize the west, and plea for other Arabs to help

c. Style : Brown provided the context for Husseins style. From him we learn that Classic Arabic dialect is used for authoritative, diplomatic and religious tones.

d. Memory : Speeches were probably prepared beforehand and written down. This canon is often not applied by neo-aristotelian critics because many speeches are not memorized.

e. Delivery : Brown describes the voice as dynamic, energetic, and passionate.

Slide 16 “Conclusion”


a. Was the method of criticism used clearly and competently? Yes. As we just saw, Brown went through each canon thoroughly with evidence of Hussein’s rhetorical methods to prove that the targeted audience would indeed be persuaded by these speeches.

b. The context is supposed to have: The Rhetor, the occasion, and the audience.

1. Hussein as a rhetor: He was the political and military leader of Iraq. He wanted to maintain power and prestige, dominance and authority. He had never served in the military previously

ii. Occasion of the speech: war between the west against Iraq with heavy air assault. He made irregularly timed addresses to inform of allied defeats.

1. Audience to whom the rhetoric was addressed: It was aimed at Muslims, untrained military public, Iraqis and neighboring friendly nations. They spoke Arabic, were against western society, and had national pride

iii. Brown made links between Saddams rhetorical efforts, past, and character.

1. Ethos : Arabs are brothers and Muslims against a common enemy. Hussein dentified muslin himself. He himself wanted to settle the Palestinian dispute.

2. Pathos : Hussein reminded Iraqi’s that they were all Muslim and Arab and wanted to stir up nationalism to help Iraq fight by appealing to fear of the west

3. Logos : Arab brothers must stick together to fight off evil. They are brothers in the eyes of Allah

Slide 17: “What knowledge has been gained?”a. In general, it is a good or a poor example of the use of this method of

criticism? i. Good example. It is difficult to cover all of the canons thoroughly

in a short artifact. b. Did the speech evoke the intended response from the intended audience?

i. Brown claims in the end that Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric was successful and though many Arab nations did not help, Hussein was able to gain sympathy. He successfully reached the audience through a ‘brotherhood’ because even after defeat in war he remained in power and did not get pressured to resign.

c. Author’s stancei. Brown argued that the targeted audience viewed Hussein

differently than we do, and he proved it with Hussein’s successful persuasion.

ii. Brown presented the argument that Hussein was a successful rhetor in a convincing way with the use of the 5 canons.

neo -aristotelian presentation outline

Documents