Intro for Essay 2

When it comes to demagoguery, we typically think of people such as Hitler or Stalin. But what we don’t notice as easily is the practices of demagoguery on a much smaller scale. Patricia Roberts-Miller, author of the article “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”, analyzes what the works of demagoguery is, it’s negative and positive affects, and how it is used to persuade an audience. Her analysis on demagoguery can be used to find fallacies amongst other writer’s works, for example, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre’s speech on Newtown Tragedy. Within Lapierre’s article, he attempts to persuade the public, and congress that our country needs armed guards in every school in America to prevent more school shootings. In doing so, Lapierre uses demagogic fallacies: scapegoating and demonization. His demagogic appeal reaches out to those that it would affect the most, such as parents and teachers, for support on the issue. Lapierre does not think rationally about the issue and wants to act immediately on it. Within this paper, I will analyze Lapierre’s text with respect to Roberts-Miller’s article on demagoguery. 

Miller and Lapierre

Dane Hollar

Christopher Werry

March 2^nd, 2015

RWS 200

Miller and Lapierre

Author of “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric,” Roberts Miller, describes these terms, as well as others, in her own words to her audience. She describes demagoguery as a way of appealing to the mass by popular interests or feelings rather than through logical and rational arguments. She also describes scapegoating as a way of accusing a person or group for faults that may or may not have been their wrongdoing; “scapegoat bears the blame, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and increased unity” (Miller 68). Another term, polarization, is said to be a way of influencing people by presenting them with two options, one in which they want their peers to believe and another in which is obviously absurd and no one would want to believe. Miller also describes “simple solutions’ as the answer to complex situations, yet it is wrong. These “simple solutions” may be right or wrong, but the people do not care as long as the problem is fixed. Miller talks about a two different types of people called ingroup and outgroup. This type of thinking is like claiming that there is right and there is wrong and no in between. It also forces people to chose a side and not be able to think for themselves if some aspects on both sides could have a valid point or not. Lastly, Miller talks about victimization. Miller describes victimization as similar to scapegoating except it is focused primarily on a smaller weaker group in order to demolish its existence before it can become large and over power the group victimizing.

            Roberts Miller sees all of these stratagies as a problem because they can be powerful if used by the wrong social group or person. Miller uses examples of powerful people, such as Hitler and Stalin, to emphasize that they used these strategies and caused millions of deaths and issues amongst the world. Miller finds demagoguery as a fallacy that violates the “standards of good public discourse.” She believes that by persuading people through common interests instead of facts and the truth about issues causes people to follow someone or a group for the wrong reasons. For instance, she describes Hitler as a demagogue and how his actions of appealing to the publics common interest violated the “standards of good public discourse.” His actions created catastrophe throughout Europe and amongst the “outgrou” (Jews).

            In Lapierre’s text, he uses a demagogic appeal by relating to his readers about how they worry for their children and desire to protect them. He says “As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school . . . The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Lapierre 60).  Lapierre is appealing to the mass of parents that desire to protect their children, which is almost every parent, and doesn’t get into the logical sense of having an armed man at every school in America. He wants it to be done immediately with no questions asked and for parents to back him up. And why wouldn’t they? They want to protect their children, and his argument seems valid. This is how Lapierre uses a demagogic strategy.

            Lapierre uses the strategy, scapegoating, described by Robert Miller as when the “scapegoat bears the blame, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and increased unity” (Miller 68). Lapierre says, “Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year’s budget,  and scrapped “Secure Our Schools” policing grants in next year’s budget” (Lapierre 61). Lapierre is the scapegoater and the President is the scapegoat in this situation. Lapierre wants to bring someone to fault for he knows that if he does, people will follow and it will get a rise out of them. This is why scapegoating is effective when trying to rally a group together behind a cause. People want to blame a singular group or person for problems, not themselves.

             

Lapierre Analysis

            A few of Lapierres claims consist of protecting our children, enforcing armed security guards at all schools across America, and promoting the benefits of the NRA. Two strategies he uses to get these points across to his readers are transitional questions and pathos. Lapierres ability to emotionally attack his audience is very strong. He implies extensively that the reader’s children are at risk and that they need to do something about it. He does not use a lot of logos or ethos for his statements seem questionable and he has no evidence to back them up. He uses statistics that have no background and he never quotes or uses in authorities figures to persuade his audience. For example, Lapierre says, “A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.” Where is he getting this information? Does this mean that they are physically there at the seen of the crime or through films and video games or the media? Lapierre leaves a lot of open-ended statements and does not have enough evidence to back them up for them to be accurate or believable. Another example is when he says, “The media call semi-automatic firearms ‘machine guns’ – They claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers . . . when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don’t know what they are talking about.” Well how are we supposed to know that he knows what he is talking about? He doesn’t show statistics or evidence to prove that his statement is right either. He just blatantly says that he is right and that the media is wrong and that you should believe him.  Needless to say, Lapierre has a valid point, but fails to persuade his audience into believing him.

Gun Safety

Gun Safety

In author Nicholas Kristoff’s article, “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”, he claims that the reason there have been numerous homicides in America is due to the N.R.A.’s inability to create a better system as to the selling of guns. Kristoff also claims that the way to reduce deaths by guns is to approach the issue from its origins. Through the use of rhetorical questions and all of Aristotle’s Appeal’s, Kistoff is able to influence his audience that there should be regulations on the distribution of guns. His most effective tactic was his use of statistics for they were gathered from well-known associations and brought a sense of shock to the reader. One thing that caught my attention was his last two sentences: “Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure” (Kristoff 20). I felt that this was a very aggressive move, for Kristoff brought the readers families into a scenario in a negative way. This use of pathos gave Kristoff’s audience something to think about after reading his article and convinces them to consider his claim more than if he hadn’t included it.  Kristoff’s article was convincing and sends a message to his audience.

Is Veiling Failing?

Dane Hollar

Christopher Werry

February 23, 2015

RWS 200

Is Veiling Failing?

Feminism is an on going global issue and the stances on how feminism is represented are causing an uproar amongst individuals. The act of veiling by Muslim women has drawn multiple opinions from different groups of feminists throughout the past few decades; especially after 9/11.  Mayson Haydar, a young Muslim woman raised in America and Lila Abu-Lughod, a Middle Eastern Muslim professor of anthropology at Columbia University, both share their opinions on how the act of veiling affects feminism within their articles. Haydar’s article, “Body Outlaws,” has an Americanized Muslim point of view and uses anecdotes to make her argument better understood by her reader’s. Abu-Lughod’s article, “The Muslim Woman,” has a Middle Eastern Muslim point of view on veiling and primarily uses facts to persuade her audience that veiling is choice. Both authors are attempting to reach out to their audiences, which consist of mainly American feminists who believe that veiling is the opposite of what feminism represents. Although both share similar claims and strategies, their abilities to get their audience attention and inform them of their arguments differ. Within this paper, I will expand upon Haydar’s and Abu-Lughod’s rhetorical strategies, such as rebuttal, analogy, and definition, as well as their claims.

Veiling derives from the Islamic religion and is common amongst many Muslim women. Both authors claim that Muslim women veil because they believe in Islam, but many western feminists believe that it is demeaning and demoralizing. In Abu-Lughod’s and Haydar’s articles, they are able to take the opposition and construct it to support their arguments that veiling is the opposite of what many western feminists believe. Abu-Lughod says, “it is common knowledge that the ultimate sign of the oppression of Afghani women under the Taliban-and-the-terrorists is that they were forced to wear the burqa. Liberals sometimes confess their surprise that even though Afghanistan has been liberated from the Taliban, women do not seem to be throwing off their burqas . . .” (Abu-Lughod 3). Here Abu-Lughod is interpreting the views of Americans and describing what they believe Muslim women should do, for it is thought that men have control over what women wear, like the burqa. Abu-Lughod later goes on to take the opposition by describing why many Muslim women have kept the veil on, even after the Taliban were liberated: “Religious belief and community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair in some traditions . . . People wear the appropriate form of dress for their social communities and are guided by socially shared standards, religious beliefs, and moral ideals” (Abu-Lughod 3).  Muslim women have a choice to veil and most continue to wear it for their own purposes, whether is be religious or moral ideals. It is a sign of independence rather than male domination or fear. By using this rebuttal, Abu-Lughod is able to take the argument that many Americans have and give a reason that contradicts their argument and supports her own.

While Abu-Lughod focuses more on veiling in the Middle East, Haydar is able to describe her own view as a Muslim in American culture. “. . . many Americans see veiling as an oppressive tool forced on Muslim women by the men in our culture. Yet the practice of covering hair and body is a choice for many women - and is not specific to Islam” (Haydar 260). Similar to Abu-Lughod, Haydar describes the negative view that Americans have on veiling, and plans to contradict their argument with reasons why veiling is not an “oppressive tool”. She later describes an encounter with a girl on a bus, in New York City, that couldn’t understand why Haydar would wear a veil:

“(the girl said) ‘Me, I got to be free.’ To my eyes, her idea of freedom involved a complicated hairstyle, loads of makeup and jeans she probably had to sew herself into. If anything I would find that ensemble more caging, more oppressive, and more painful than clothes that would allow e to walk in front of construction sites confidently, with minimal risk of harassment” (Haydar 260).

 Haydar’s rebuttal is able to capture her audience’s attention for it is something they can relate to. Haydar contradicts the “oppressive” interpretation by describing American views on veiling and then opposing it with a personal anecdote. Both authors use the oppressive outlook that many Americans have and use it to support their argument on the religious aspect of veiling and how it should be seen as a choice.

            Veiling is as much of a choice as choosing what religion to believe in. When Muslim women choose to believe in Islam, they are doing so on their own terms, which is why veiling is part of that choice. Similar to any other religion, people choose how in-depth they want their religious experience to be. Haydar says, “all through high school, I wore a jilbab exclusively, because I didn’t have to spend any effort worrying about what was in season or what I would be expected to wear to fit in . . . My once-strict interpretation of modesty has been adapted to my urban lifestyle” (Haydar 263). Haydar chose to veil because she did not have the desire to dress how others dressed to fit in with certain social groups. She was not forced to veil, but merely did it for personal reasons. Haydar’s use of analogy emphasizes her freedom when it comes to veiling.  Abu-Lughod on the other hand has a more religious based view on choosing to veil. She relates back to the Taliban liberation by saying: “To draw some analogies, none perfect: why are we surprised when Afghan women don’t throw off their burqas when we know perfectly well that it wouldn’t be appropriate to wear shorts to the opera? Religious belief and community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair in some traditions – Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic until recently” (Abu-Lughod 3). By comparing wearing shorts to the opera and not wearing a burqa, Abu-Lughod is able to relate to her readers and give them a different view of veiling. Her use of analogy creates a link between two societies while presenting her case on the importance veiling has amongst Muslims.

            Feminists have been striving for equality between men and women for decades. Western feminists feel that when Muslim women cover their bodies, they seem to be hiding and it defeats the purpose of feminism. In contradiction to that, Abu-Lughod and Haydar attempt to disprove these allegations through the use of the rhetorical strategy, definition. In Haydar’s article she says, “. . . my mother knew the best way to introduce veiling to me was to emphasize its feminist, forward-thinking reasons: Covering removes that first level of being judged, of being assessed based on my measurements, and it absolves me of the need or desire to be wanted solely for my looks” (Haydar 260). Here, Haydar is able to use a personal anecdote to describe her experience with veiling and its feminist views. She uses definition to describe to her audience those views and what they mean to her. On the other hand, Abu-Lughod relates veiling to freedom to suggest its feministic quality. “ . . . we have to resist the reductive interpretation of veiling as the quintessential sign of women’s unfreedom. What does freedom mean if we know that humans are social beings, always raised in certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities that shape their desires and understanding of the world?” (Abu-Lughod 4). Here, Abu-Lughod uses rhetorical questions to define “women’s unfreedom.” By questioning her readers, she emphasizes the points in which she is defining what freedom means to people and how it relates to feminism.

The on going struggle of feminism and its meaning throughout the world is bewildering to those who do not believe in it and even those who do. Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod exert their point of views on this issue through their articles using the rhetorical strategies: rebuttal, analogy, and definition. For most people who read this that are not as involved in the idea of feminism, the act of veiling may seem a bit puzzling, for they never thought to take a stance on the issue or have only been brought to light about this issue through stereotypical media manipulation. On the other hand, you have current feminists and women’s rights activists that have their own personal opinions upon the issue. Regardless, both authors attempt to persuade their audience that the act of veiling should be a personal choice and is in most cases, a feminist act. They believe that veiling allows them to be seen as a whole person and that there is good to come out of it. Although both authors have similar arguments, Haydar’s article is more successful than Abu-Lughod at capturing it’s audiences attention and persuading them as to why the veil is important for Haydar’s anecdotes are relatable to her audience. Personally, both articles have enlightened me on the act of veiling and has given me a different perspective on what it’s meaning. As a male, I have seen and partaken in situations where females are treated disrespectfully. I feel that the veil does nothing more than hide a females body behind a sheet of cloth. But I do agree with the fact that what you wear and how you present yourself is a choice, which I believe is the moral behind both authors’ articles. Therefore, I think veiling should be considered an act of feminism and freedom.

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “The Muslim Women” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San Diego State University, 2015. 1-9. Print

Maysan Haydar. “veiled intentions: don’t judge a muslim girl by her covering” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San Diego State University, 2015. 258-265. Print