Chapter 10 Pages Attached Due By Wednesday, Oct 19 At 10:00

Chapter 10 Pages Attacheddue By Wednesday Oct 19 At 1000amturn

(Chapter 10) - Pages attached due by Wednesday, Oct 19 at 10:00am. Turnitin required!! --In what ways are “ideographs†similar and/or dissimilar to “ultimate terms,†which were discussed in Chapter 6? --Considering the definition of “critical rhetoric†offered in the chapter, can you think of any public figures who act as “critical rhetoricians†in contemporary society? --Considering the definition of “hegemony,†can you think of any previously “commonsense†beliefs that have been called into question in recent years? --To what extent could critical rhetoric’s investigation of how power operates in contemporary culture be productively extended to analyzing body language?

Paper For Above instruction

The concepts of ideographs, ultimate terms, critical rhetoric, and hegemony are central to understanding how language and power operate within society. This paper explores the similarities and differences between ideographs and ultimate terms, examines the role of public figures as critical rhetoricians, considers recent challenges to hegemonic beliefs, and discusses the potential extension of critical rhetorical analysis to body language.

Ideographs and Ultimate Terms: Similarities and Differences

Ideographs, as introduced by Michael Calvin McGee, are culturally specific symbols of collective ideals that function to promote social cohesion and justify collective actions. They are abstract terms like “freedom,” “democracy,” or “justice” that carry profound ideological significance (McGee, 1980). Ultimate terms, on the other hand, originate from Kenneth Burke’s theory of rhetoric and are words that possess an almost sacrosanct quality within a specific discourse, serving as ultimate points of persuasion (Burke, 1969). Both ideographs and ultimate terms are deeply embedded in cultural narratives and serve to evoke emotional and ideological responses from audiences.

While they share a function of shaping belief systems and motivating action, their key difference lies in their scope and specificity. Ideographs are broad and collective symbols that influence societal values, whereas ultimate terms tend to be more singular, decisive words that serve as endpoints of persuasion within specific rhetorical contexts (McGee, 1980; Burke, 1969). Nevertheless, both operate as strategic linguistic tools that sustain or challenge cultural norms.

Public Figures as Critical Rhetoricians

Critical rhetoric involves analyzing how language constructs social realities and power relations. Many contemporary public figures exemplify critical rhetoricians by challenging dominant narratives or exposing underlying power dynamics. For example, Malala Yousafzai employs rhetorical strategies to advocate for education and women’s rights, critically questioning oppressive structures (Yousafzai, 2013). Similarly, politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez utilize rhetoric to critique economic inequality and promote social justice, acting as critical rhetoricians who question hegemonic policy frameworks (Ocasio-Cortez, 2019). These figures use persuasive language to challenge the status quo and empower marginalized voices, exemplifying the principles of critical rhetoric.

The Role of Hegemony and Challenged Beliefs

Hegemony, as defined by Antonio Gramsci, refers to the dominance of a particular cultural worldview that is maintained through consent and ideological leadership (Gramsci, 1971). In recent years, many “commonsense” beliefs once considered unassailable have been called into question, challenging hegemonic stability. For instance, traditional notions of gender roles have been critically examined, leading to greater acceptance of gender fluidity and equality (Butler, 1990). Likewise, economic hegemonies have been questioned amid debates about income disparity and the impacts of globalization. These challenges reflect the dynamic nature of cultural beliefs and the capacity of critical rhetoric to disrupt hegemonic narratives.

Extending Critical Rhetoric to Body Language

The investigation of how power operates in society need not be confined solely to spoken or written language. Critical rhetoric’s focus on uncovering underlying meanings and power relations can be extended effectively into body language analysis. Body language communicates nonverbal cues that reveal attitudes, emotions, and power dynamics often hidden in verbal discourse (Burgoon et al., 2016). For example, gestures, posture, and eye contact can reinforce or undermine spoken messages, thereby influencing social interactions and perceived authority. Analyzing body language through a critical rhetorical lens can expose subtle forms of persuasion and resistance, deepening understanding of how power circulates in everyday interactions.

References

• Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press.
• Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal Communication. Routledge.
• Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith (Eds.). International Publishers.
• McGee, M. C. (1980). The “Ideograph”: A Link between Rhetor and Ideology. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1–16.
• Ocasio-Cortez, A. (2019). Remarks on Economic Justice. Congressional Speech, Washington D.C.
• Yousafzai, M. (2013). I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Little, Brown and Company.
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.