Do Not Use ARead Chapter 17-18 Answer Each Question Separate

Do Not Use Airead Chapter 17 18answer Each Question Separatelylin

Read Chapter 17 + 18 Answer each question separately, linking the textbook concepts/theories. 1. For good reasons, Aristotle's theory is listed under the category of "public rhetoric," but it is also a theory of influence. How does it compare to social judgment theory and the elaboration likelihood model? 2. What are the major criticisms of Aristotle's Rhetoric ? Which do you believe is the most damaging? 3. Compare Burke's perspective by incongruity with Aristotle's approach to metaphor. 4. Burke asserts that without identification, there can be no persuasion. Explain what he means by identification and why it is so important. CITATION: Sparks, E.G.A.L. G. (2022). A First Look at Communication Theory (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US).

Paper For Above instruction

Aristotle's rhetoric has been a foundational theory in communication, primarily classified as "public rhetoric," emphasizing persuasive speech aimed at influencing audiences in public settings. While it primarily addresses persuasive strategies, Aristotle's approach also functions as a theory of influence, focusing on ethos, pathos, and logos to shape and guide audience opinions (Aristotle, trans. 2007). Comparing Aristotle's model to social judgment theory and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) reveals nuanced differences in understanding persuasion. Social judgment theory posits that individuals evaluate persuasive messages within their existing attitude latitudes, with the likelihood of acceptance depending on how closely a message aligns with their current views (Sherif & Sherif, 1967). Conversely, the ELM emphasizes two pathways—central and peripheral—by which individuals process persuasive messages, influenced by motivation and elaboration likelihood (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Aristotle's focus on character and emotional appeal aligns more with peripheral cues, whereas social judgment theory and ELM delve into cognitive processes and attitude change mechanisms.

Critical assessments of Aristotle's "Rhetoric" highlight several limitations. One major criticism is its lack of empirical grounding; Aristotle's observations were based on rhetorical practice rather than scientific research, which some argue limits its applicability in modern, evidence-based communication (Foss & Griffen, 1995). Another critique is its potential to promote manipulation, as it emphasizes persuasion over truthfulness, raising ethical concerns (Bitzer, 1968). The most damaging criticism, however, concerns its potential for misuse—manipulating audiences without regard for truth—undermining moral integrity in persuasive efforts (Aristotle, trans. 2007). This ethical issue remains central in debates about the boundaries of rhetorical influence.

Burke's perspective on incongruity, rooted in his dramatistic approach, emphasizes the importance of tension and contradiction in language and thought as a means to stimulate perception and change. Unlike Aristotle's emphasis on metaphor as a tool for clarity or beautification, Burke views metaphor fundamentally as a device that generates incongruity—challenging audiences to recognize contradictions that motivate reevaluation (Burke, 1966). Aristotle’s approach often aims at illuminating or clarifying concepts through metaphors, fostering understanding. In contrast, Burke's approach leverages incongruity to evoke emotional and perceptual shifts, making metaphors a means of unsettling assumptions and prompting critical reflection—this creates an active engagement with language rather than passive reception (Burke, 1966).

Burke's assertion that "without identification, there can be no persuasion" underscores the importance of shared values, language, and social bonds in effective communication. Identification involves creating a sense of commonality with the audience, aligning the speaker’s values with theirs, which fosters trust and reduces perceived opposition (Burke, 1968). This shared identification makes persuasive messages more compelling because the audience perceives speaker and message as authentic extensions of their own identity. Burke contends that persuasion depends on this process; without it, efforts to influence are less effective or may even backfire. Therefore, identification is central to establishing a connection that facilitates acceptance and change in attitude or behavior, highlighting its crucial role in communication (Sparks, 2022).

References

• Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric. Translated by George A. Kennedy. Oxford University Press.
• Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. University of California Press.
• Burke, K. (1968). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. U of California Press.
• Foss, S. K., & Griffin, G. (1995). Persuasion and influence in American culture. St. Martin's Press.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123-205). Academic Press.
• Sherif, C. W., & Sherif, M. (1967). Attitude and attitude change. Open University Press.
• Sparks, E. G., & G. (2022). A First Look at Communication Theory (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.