Thursday, October 22, 2015

Herbert W. Simons--"Requirements, Problems, and Strategies: A Theory of Persuasion for Social Movements"

Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest, 2nd ed.

(1970)

"As any number of currently unemployed college presidents can attest, it is frequently impossible to separate detractors from supporters of a social movement, let alone to discern rhetorical intentions, to distinguish between rhetorical acts and coercive acts, or to estimate the effects of messages on the many audiences to which they must inevitably be addressed. Actions that may succeed with one audience...may alienate others. For similar reasons, actions that may seem productive over the short run may fail over the long run (the reverse is also true)" (35).

"Designed for microscopic analysis of particular speeches, the standard tools of rhetorical criticism are ill-suited for unravelling the complexity of discourse in social movements or for capturing its grand flow" (35).

"By enumerating rhetorical requirements, theory identifies the ends in light of which rhetorical strategies and tactics may be evaluated. By suggesting parameters and directions to the rhetorical critic, theory places him in a better position to bring his own sensitivity and imagination to bear on analyses of particular movements" (36).

***"This paper is aimed...at providing a leader-centered conception of persuasion in social movements. Rooted in sociological theory, it assumes that the rhetoric of a movement must follow, in  a general way, from the very nature of social movements. Any movement, it is argued, must fulfill the same functional requirements as more formal collectivities. These imperatives constitute rhetorical requirements for the leadership of a movement. Conflicts among requirements create rhetorical problems which in turn affect decisions on rhetorical strategy. The primary rhetorical test of the leader--and, indirectly, of the strategies he employs--is his capacity to fulfill the requirements of his movement by resolving or reducing rhetorical problems" (36).

His essay and theory serve only as a tool for "reformist and revolutionary movements," and should not be used to analyze/evaluate "labor unions, government agencies, business organizations" or anythings that is seen as a fad or boom.

Simons declares that leaders of social movements must meet a number of rhetorical requirements:

  1. They must attract, maintain, and mold workers (i.e. followers) into an efficiently organized unity. "A hierarchy and division of labor must be established in which members are persuaded to take orders, to perform menial tasks, and to forego social pleasures. Funds must be raised, literature printed and distributed, local chapters organized, etc."
  2. They must secure adoption of their product by the larger structure (i.e. the external system, the established order).
  3. They must react to resistance generated by the larger structure. "The established order may be 'too kind' to the movement or it may be too restrictive. It may steal the movement's thunder by anticipating its demands and acting on some of them, by appointing a commission to 'study the problem,' or by bribing or coopting personnel. On the other hand, it may threaten, harass, or socially ostracize the membership, refuse to recognize or negotiate with the movement, or deny it access to the mass media" (37)
"Shorn of the controls that characterize formal organizations, yet required to perform the same internal functions, harassed from without, yet obligated to adapt to the external system, the leader of a social movement must constantly balance inherently conflicting demands on his position and on the movement he represents" (37).

"the disintegration of a movements may be traced to its failure to meet one or more of the demands incumbent upon it" (38).

"The use of violence and other questionable means may be prompted further by restrictions on legitimate avenues of expression, imposed by the larger structure...A vicious cycle develops in which militant tactics invite further suppression, which spurs the movement on to more extreme methods" (38).

"The leader may also need to distort, conceal, exaggerate, etc., in addressing his own supporters...mass support is more apt to be secured when ideological statements are presented as 'generalized beliefs,' over-simplified conceptions of social problems, and magical, 'if-only' beliefs about solutions. Statements of ideology must provide definition of that which is ambiguous in the social situation, give structure to anxiety and a tangible target for hostility, foster in-group feelings, and articulate wish-fulfillment beliefs about the movements power to succeed. Hence the use of 'god words' and 'devil words' as well as 'stereotypes, smooth and graphic phrases and folk arguments (38).

"Yet morale cannot be secured through abdications of leadership...The problem is especially acute in movements that distrust authority and value participatory democracy" (39).

"The leader must appear to be what he cannot be...he must handle dilemmas with consummate manipulative skill" (39).

"The leader must adapt to several audiences simultaneously. In an age of mass media, rhetorical utterances addressed to one audience are likely to reach others" (39).

"Movements require a diversity of leadership types" (39).

"How he adapts strategies to demands constitutes a primary basis for evaluating his rhetorical output...from the sweet and reasonable to the violently revolutionary, one may identify moderate, intermediate, and militant types" (40).

Rhetorical Strategies

--moderates 

The moderate uses "the strategies of peaceful persuasion rhetoricians know best and characteristically prescribe...inveighs against social norms but always in the value language of the social order...In textbook terms, the moderate adapts to the listener's needs, wants, and values; speaks his language, adjusts to his frame of reference; reduces the psychological distance between his movement and the larger structure" (40).

--militants

"militants act on the assumption of a fundamental clash of interests...militants use rhetoric as an expression, an instrument, and an act of force...it strains the imagination to believe that both may work...the decisive changes wrought by militant rhetorics in recent years gives credence to the view that the traditionally prescribed pattern is not the only viable alternative...The core tactic of militant strategists is that they seek to change the actions of their primary targets as a precondition for changes in attitudes...Although the aim of pressure tactics may be to punish directly (e.g. strikes, boycotts), more frequently they are forms of 'body rhetoric,' designed to dramatize issues, enlist additional sympathizers, and delegitimatize the established order" (40).

"So the leader of a social movement may attempt to avoid or resolve the aforementioned dilemmas by employing 'intermediate' strategies, admittedly a catchall term for those efforts that combine militant and moderate patterns of influence" (42)

  1. "Militant tactics confer visibility on a movement; moderate tactics gain entry into decision centers."
  2. "militants and moderates must both be ambivalent about 'successes' and 'failures'
  3. "Militant supporters are easily energized; moderate supporters are more easily controlled"
  4. Militants are effective with 'power-vulnerables'; moderates are effective with 'power-invulnerables'; neither is effective with both
    1. vulnerable-people who may be removed from power positions based on negative press or moods from the masses
    2. invulnerable-"those who have little or nothing to lose by publicly voicing their prejudices and acting on their self-concerns"

"Truly the exemplar of oxymoronic postures, he may stand as a 'conservative radical' or a 'radical conservative,' espousing militant demands in the value language of the established order or militant slogans in behalf of moderate proposals

"Intermediacy can be a dangerous game. Calculated to energize supporters, win over neutrals, pressure power-vulnerables, and mollify the opposition, it may end up antagonizing everyone. The well-turned  phrase may easily appear as a devilish trick, the rationale as a rationalization, the tactful comment as an artless dodge. To the extent that strategies of intermediacy require studied ambiguity, insincerity, and even distortion, perhaps the leader's greatest danger is that others may find out what he really thinks" (42).

"The great leaders (and the great movements) seem capable of combining these seemingly antithetical strategies without inconsistency by justifying their use with appeals to higher principles" (43).
A

No comments:

Post a Comment