Figures of Speech Served Fresh

Dear Figaro,

I just finished reading "Thank You For Arguing" and wanted to thank you for writing such an amazing book. I borrowed it from the library, but it's so useful that I just ordered a copy from Amazon. Thank you!

Chris

Dear Chris,

It's people like you who keep my figurative world spinning round. Many thanks.

Fig.

Dear Fig,

I'm not sure if this is a figure of speech or a larger team-rhetoric strategy, but is there a term for the technique of having one rhetor make intentionally-extremist proclamations in order to push the bounds of normality, and in so doing make the slightly-less-extremist people in his own tribe sound more reasonable?

It's sort of the "bad cop, slightly-less-bad cop" version of discourse, and is only effective when you have more than one person arguing the same side of a debate.

I see it a lot in the national discourse, and I get the feeling it's an intentional strategy, but I'd like to know if there's a name for it.

Dear Steve,

While I don't know of any technical term for it (feel free to supply one, rhetoricians), in my next book I describe the technique as a Contraster, a figure of relativity that uses contrasts to make things look better or worse, bigger or smaller. Spiro Agnew, the maniacal vice president under Richard Nixon, helped make Nixon look like a moderate. A neat Contraster.

As a figure of speech, the Contraster lets you bring in objects to change the perspective on a subject. Look what happens in the classic 1950 film Sunset Boulevard.

Joe: You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big.
Norma: I am big. It's the pictures that got small.

In just two lines you get the theme of the movie: has-been film prima donna lamenting a Golden Age of moving pictures.

Fig.

Thanks,

Steve B

Hey Fig,

I'm going on 25 actually ;). I'll do some review reading of your book and keep you posted!
Thanks!!
-Mary

Hi Figaro,

Where can I practice being persuasive? Can you suggest some places I can practice honing my skills without losing friends or making my parents angry?

Thanks!
-Mary

Dear Mary,

Good question! The answer depends how old you are. Do you have a debating team? While school debate practices only a few argument skills, it's a great start. At the same time, think about ways to disagree with your friends without making them angry. How can you express your disagreement in ways that make it sound like you're agreeing? Or that remind them of things you know they believe in?

In my book, I talk about the need to understand your audience before you can persuade them. What do your parents believe and expect?

I know, this is hard. And once you do know your audience, sometimes it's hard to even bring up a disagreement. Parents tend to say "Because I told you to!" when you ask for an explanation. But keep this in mind: Every "No," every angry outburst, is a kind of information. Ask yourself what's causing it. And then work with that. If your parents think that an "obedient" child is one who always agrees with them, then always agree. Then use another moment, when things calm down, to talk about what you think is important.

When you get a chance, come back to the site and tell me more about arguing with your parents and friends. Then let's see what we can work out.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Someone sought unsuccessfully to inveigle a wary friend into joining his side of a power struggle among managers of an organisation for which my friend does a lot of consulting work, with a device which I am trying to analyse rhetorically, but cannot to my full satisfaction.

Actually I had hoped when my friend recounted his story to be able to put my finger on what had been practised on him by exclaiming magisterially, "Oh, but that is a textbook example of [ziziereia]!" But I am stumped and I am hoping you may offer some insights.

The "player" had invited my friend to dinner and in this setting sought to involve him in some gambit to reduce the influence of one of the other players. He imparted certain information, but before doing so said something like,
Player: "Well are you aware that .... Oh, I'd better not tell you about that ..."
Friend: [Mildly, relatively indifferently] "What is it?"
Player [after hesitating]: "All Right, I'll tell you, but this cannot go any further."

The player then imparted certain information, and concluded with a gently-put version of what in bold would be something like, "If you divulge this, I'll make sure you don't work in this town again."

What is the rhetorical name for the indecision exhibited at the beginning? It harnesses the following elements at least:
- doubt about the issue of whether to divulge. R.A. Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms defines Aporia/Diaphoresis/Dubitatio as, "True or feigned doubt or deliberation about an issue". I suppose this is an example of aporia, but note the indecision does not express doubt as to the substantive information the player is about to reveal, but only a prelimiary indecision about whether to reveal it. Aporia seems to be valued as a device for heightening the audience's attention. See how this information is troubling the speaker! It must be important and we should give it our full attention!

- an appeal of a sort to ethos: the player is august enough to be in possession of important information, and in a theatrical way demonstrates that he exercises discretion in the use of this information.

- an appeal to pathos: my friend should feel honoured because he has been entrusted with the information, taken into the player's confidence.

- an echo of the earlier aporia: even after imparting the confidential information, the player remains doubtful as to whether he ought to have done this, whether my friend really can be trusted with it, feeling the need to anchor the confidentiality with a threat. So aporia is certainly a major element here, but it is much too broad I feel, and I am hoping for something much more keenly-honed from the ancients.

- the information is so important that a threat to protect it is justified
- the information is dangerous. Having received it, my friend is in a kind of danger, owing to the threat which accompanies it.

- the information is also of course made more valuable by being secret. Most people are not permitted to have this information. My friend has been initiated into an exclusive category. There is a frisson of wrongdoing on the player's part: he seems to be taking a risk, perhaps breaking his own duty of confidentiality to others in passing on this information, and a bond is created between him and my friend, by their mutual knowledge of the wrongoing.

My friend is an anthropologist who has read too much Foucault. With him, everything is about power dynamics. As for me, I'm afraid I have read more books on office politics and pseudo-sychology than on the orthodox rhetorical perspective.

I will appreciate anything you might offer.

Best regards

John

Dear Figaro,

I'm proud to say that your book never collects dust on my bookshelf, but embarrassed to admit that I find pleasure in identifying rhetorical devices in daily interactions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the President just dropped a textbook 'reverse word' technique, as described in your book. In an interview with a Denver news station, Obama stated, "I don't think there's a sense that I've been successful." This phrase sounds less detrimental than saying, "I think there's a sense that I have been unsuccessful." Am I not right?

JB

Dear JB,

Yes, indeed! When you're accused of something, don't repeat the accusation. Admit the negative of its opposite. George W. Bush was a goofy master of this. "I think we were welcomed," he said of the American invasion of Iraq. "But it was not a peaceful welcome." For more on this, click on the "Talk like Bush!" link in the margin.

Oh, and why on earth would you feel embarrassed at identifying devices? Or were you employing a device by saying that?

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
How should I go about convincing my parents (using rhetoric) into getting me a cell phone as a gift for Christmas? How do I get them to choose the $150 one instead of the $90 one? SN: I've tried using the safety excuse but that isn't working...
Ceeya

Dear Ceeya,

The safety argument was a good start, assuming that the more expensive phone would in fact make you safer. (The GPS won't get you lost?) The point is to make your pitch from their standpoint. Some possibilities:

- The more expensive phone will somehow save money in the long run.
- You'll earn the extra $60 yourself, either in work for them (what chore have they been bugging you unsuccessfully to do?) or in actual cash that you'll give them.
- You'll trade them something--a habit they want you to stop, or a stereo they wish you'd stop playing, or a show they don't want you to watch.

To butter them up for your argument, tell them that you're trying to learn to negotiate responsibly, and that in return you devoutly hope they'll give your proposal a fair hearing. Go on, lay it on thick: tell them that of course you'll try to accept their ultimate decision with as much adult grace as you can muster. Then tell them that Figaro strongly encourages parents to reward a good rational argument whenever they can. Worst case, it'll get a laugh out of them before they ask, "Who's Figaro?"

Please let us know what happens.

Fig.

Hi Figaro,

In your Constitution quiz, question #4 asks: "What branch of government determines who can qualify as an American citizen?" One of the choices is "The President." The president is not a branch of govt. The "Executive Branch" is one of the three branches. it would help if the quiz were more clear, especially if one of your goals is to educate people.

Also, question #5 asks "Can someone commit treason by expressing support for al-Qaeda?" Your explanation says: "Article III, section 3 goes out of its way to limit treason to physical acts or “aid and comfort” to the enemy."

I believe that "aid and comfort" would have to be defined. I can just see the TeaBaggers (Republicans in disguise) shouting and screaming over people who express support for al-Qaeda. They would shout to the rooftops saying that any speech in support of an enemy equals Aid and Comfort. What would you tell them?

Jennifer G.
Seattle, WA

Thanks for the comments, Jennifer. You're technically right that the president doesn't represent a "branch of government," but he constitutes the executive branch in the same sense that Congress constitutes the legislative branch. As for the Tea Party--a group that by no means represents the whole of the Republican Party--I would tell them to be careful how they use the word "treason" in regard to speech, or they might find themselves facing similar charges someday.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

Angle said that Reid must accept his share of blame for Nevada's record unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure levels and demanded the Nevada Democrat acknowledge Social Security's faults:

"He needs to take some responsibility.
He says it is not his fault on the economy. Man up, Harry Reid.
He says there is no problem with Social Security. Man up, Harry Reid.
He says this war is lost and your general is dishonest. You owe us an apology. Man up, Harry Reid."

Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle at a rally in Las Vegas
Oct. 21 2010

Please your analysis and comments,
Yours,

Arie Vrolijk

Dear Figaro,

I was just reading another of Fish's NYT editorials on the humanities, and was wondering whether the following might be an example of both many questions and simplified concession? What is the rhetorical definition for this kind of framing an argument?
In any case, the "total effect" of reading the article makes me wonder how one can be a professor in the humanities and not know how to make a better case for it. Where is Flannery O'Connor when you need her.

"And it won’t do to argue that the humanities contribute to economic health of the state — by producing more well-rounded workers or attracting corporations or delivering some other attenuated benefit — because nobody really buys that argument, not even the university administrators who make it. "

Thank you,
Katherine

Dear Fig ...

Have been reading - and mouthing off - about your blog since its lovely write-up in the NYT a month or so ago. Great stuff!

Question for you. I'm preparing to teach a class on revision to poets. Want to talk to the students about pattern and point to a particular poem by the wonderful poet Kevin Connolly, quoted below. Seems as though there might be a name for the " to x is to y " construction. Is it a rhetorical device?

Thanks for your help!!

Kimberly McClintock


Winslow, Homer

1.
to wander a cacophony with the north wind as stoolpigeon
is to draw silence from a well kick it in the scrotum then
pronounce it unfit to drive

2.
to scale Everest towing a plastic Zellers baby stroller
is to strand the sun permanently in a socket
tedious to the elderly

3.
to erect a courthouse of baseballs and forcemeats
is to coax democracy toward a final euphony
the flies all shagging the dogs


Dear Kimberly,

Thanks for the kind words. The "x is to y" construction should be familiar to anyone who suffered through the SAT: it's a simple analogy. Since nothing Connolly writes is simple, though, his version constitutes a kind of satire of analogy. But it's more than that; he uses analogy to create a surprising set of interwoven unannounced analogs (wind is to pigeon, "kick it" is to socket is to forcemeat, baseballs is to shagging, cacophony is to euphony). Plus it's funny.

My favorite poems start out as fun if a little odd, with the oddness resolving into mystery and unending delights after you memorize them and swish them about in your mouth for a while before swallowing. You appreciate the figures, and what's behind them, then realize that the figures are drawing new figures...

Whew. Connolly does weird things to my writing.

Fig.

Dear Fig,

President Nixon famously declared he was not a crook, repeating the charge against him.

Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, also repeats a less than flattering label when she appears in one of her own tv ads proclaiming "I am not a witch".

Is this an error on her part or a clever ploy to get Democrats to talk about witchcraft rather than the economy?

Mrs. Fig.

Dear Mrs. Fig,

Sorry about the late response, but I was too busy being a loving husband and kind, beneficent father to have time for Ask Figaro. Plus it's nice outside.

As you know, it's generally a bad idea to respond to an attack by repeating it. People tend to remember the salient words (e.g., "witch") rather than the argument. On the other hand, the "witch" charge isn't what's hurting O'Donnell; it's her airheaded, say-anything-that-comes-to mind demeanor. So an ad that lights her like a glamour shot and has her speaking good, unsatanic English makes it sound as if lunatics have been calling her a witch (the "charge" actually came from her own mouth).

Of course, not being a witch is not a sufficient criterion for election. Except maybe for this year.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

Sharron Angle is fighting Reid in the Nevada Senate race:

“It is also the corruption in Washington, DC that is characterized by Harry Reid, lets-make-a-deal cronyism, politics as usual, and so we’re saying dirty tricks Harry is up to his dirty tricks one more time and he’s just trying to hit the girl,”
Sharron Angle on the Alan Stock Show. September 8, 2010.

Please give your analysis,

Yours,
a hardworking, mainstream, common sense, constitution loving Figarist,

Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,

Most of Angle's attack has to do with repeating focus-grouped phrases over and over and over and over and over. The memorable part comes at the end, when she accuses Reid of trying to "hit the girl."

The technique is a SYNECDOCHE, a trope that makes one example stand for the whole genus--in this case, girldom. It's not nice to hit a girl, after all.

But is it a good idea to use a sexist trope to accuse a guy of sexism? Figaro doesn't think so. Angle, shall we say, isn't one of the more adept rhetors out there.

Fig.

Dear Figaro:
I am researching diremens copulatio, a trope Richard Lahham says is obsolete. I am trying to use it to describe a statement and would like to know more about it. Can you help?
Von Jones

Dear Von,

Ah, the delectably named dirimens copulatio--Greek for "a joining that interrupts." Despite its name, the term has nothing to do with sex. I interpret it as the "But Wait There's More" figure, which piles on additional points to an argument. A dirimens copulatio will often begin with, "Not only that, but..."

This liberal interpretation of an ancient device allows us to keep using the name. I mean, how could we dare interrupt such a great copulatio?

Fig.

Hey Fig,

Just finished the book (love it!). In the last chapter, you talk about us moving towards a more rhetorical society (yay!). It's been a while since the book came out and I'm curious if you still think that we're moving in that direction? And if so, perhaps throw out a few feel-good examples?

thanks!
-Mary

Dear Mary,

We can define "rhetorical society" in two ways. (Maybe more, but Figaro has trouble counting past two.)

First, a rhetorical society is one where students study rhetoric to become good citizens. Speaking personally, we're hearing from AP English teachers across the country that they're using "Thank You for Arguing" as a text for teaching rhetoric. Naturally, we'll take this as good news. In addition, parents seem eager to have their kids learn to argue; as many as 70,000 a month have been coming to this site to download the story about teaching a kid to argue (see the links at the top of the page).

Second, we're talking about a society that acts rhetorically, persuading and being persuaded. A true rhetorical society avoids tribalism and considers common problems on their merit. Here it's a mixed bag. Obama, a man who deeply believes in rich oratory, became president. Then there's...um, not much else, frankly. We're seeing increased tribalism on the left and right, with fewer cosmopolitans speaking up. Politicians who were sounding pretty reasonable a few years ago are now mouthing extremist rhetoric.

In short, we're hoping that rhetoric education proceeds fast enough, and effectively enough, to save this country. We'd like to see rhetoric move beyond English classes and morph into full-fledged, argument centered civics classes. Meanwhile, the greatest threat to our republic is tribalism; the founders said this, not Figaro. We were founded by cosmopolitans, and cosmopolitans we must be.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

What term would you identify for an essay introduction that begins with a farcically broad opening phrase such as, "Since the beginning of time..." or "Through the ages..." I call such phrase openings cliches, but it's a little more than that, in relation to the student-writer's problematic choice of scope. Any suggestions?

DH

Dear DH,

Any labored, excessive writing can be classified as a PERIERGIA (per-ee-ER-ja). That's Greek for "overdoing it." Periergia falls under the larger category of overwriting. (The Greeks called it MACROLOGIA, which means "overwriting.")

But you asked about a specific kind of boring writing, the old "begin at the beginning" approach. If it's NOT boring, actually, it's a CHRONOGRAPHIA, a vivid description of a time or event, told chronographically. Otherwise you can call it a PERISTASIS, which gives all the details of a setting.

Figaro hates getting bogged down in technical terms--a sin called ARCANAPHILIA. So let's just call your students' figure the In the Beginning Beginning.

Incidentally, a ghost story told to freshmen at Dartmouth College begins with the beginning of geologic time in New Hampshire and proceeds up to the present, a deliberate attempt to lull the poor students before the story ends with a literal bang. The chronographia interruptus, if you will.

Fig.

Dear Fig,

Is a lie a figure of speech as Stephanie Mencimer implies in her piece for Rolling Stone?

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/glenn-beck-george-washington-restoring-honor

Love,
Mrs. Fig.

Dear Missus,

It's so nice that we loving spouses exchange sweet nothings over a public website. In this case you refer to Glenn Beck's claim that he "held the first inaugural address written in his own hand by George Washington."

The National Archives promptly replied that no one, not even a Constitution-adoring patriot, is permitted to touch the sacred documents. Glenn Beck most certainly did not make physical contact with Washington's first inaugural address.

But does his claim constitute a lie? According to Figaro's Oxford English Dictionary (the paper version, which the OED recently announced would soon be obsolete), to "behold" an object implies that one is holding that object in one's eye. This is a definite trope--a METONYMY, to be exact.

Therefore, Figaro declares Mr. Beck's little stretcher to be figurative (or, more accurately, tropical) and not a literal lie.

On the other hand, if Mrs. Figaro plans to take this conclusion badly, we declare Mr. Beck to be a lying two-faced bastard.

All my love,
Fig.

Dear Figaro

A friend just sent me this query: One of our architect’s little girls is visiting the office today and is reading a book where the characters’ names represent them (like Mrs. Little is tiny and Mr. Quatro teaches fourth grade). I know there’s a for it but can't remember it. Can you help?

I think it's just a pun, but she's not so sure. What say you?

Thank you!

Bonsmots

Dear Bonnie,

The Littles and Quatros of this world constitute a periphrasis (per IF rah sis), the figure that swaps a description for a proper name. That's Greek for "speak around." While most periphrases are more than one word (e.g., He Who Must Not Be Named), the descriptive one-word nickname counts as well.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

I'm doing my advanced placement English comprehension summer work and we had to read your book thank you for arguing. I thought it was great book :) anyway, we had a question and I was wondering if u could answer it. The question is: research the authors background and discover how his life experiences have influenced the content and context of the book. I figured who better to ask than the author himself, so if you could get back to me soon, that would be awesome :) thanks!

Alicia

Dear Alicia,

My most relevant life experience are written up in the book itself, when I talk about my family. My wife and I believed that happy couples never argued; but since we started manipulating each other rhetorically (we recognize each other's tricks, which just makes it all the more fun), we've become a happier couple.

Our kids, in turn, learned that they could get their dad to change his mind as long as they came up with a good argument. The realized that they're largely responsible for getting what they want out of a person like a parent.

One thing that isn't in the book: my career, like that of most adults, has relied on persuasive techniques through the years. Being a pretty eggheaded, rational type myself, I often found myself frustrated that people didn't naturally accept the unassailable logic in my proposals and presentations. That's one reason why I grasped rhetoric the way a drowning man grabs a life preserver. Once it taught me the principles of Ethos--the orator's persuasive image--I found that people were starting to pay more attention to what I said, and occasionally even taking me up on my proposals.

You've probably noticed that life comes more easily for some kids. With any luck, you're one of them, Alicia. Teachers praise them more, they get picked more for stuff, they gets the awards...life's unfair, and it's unfair in their favor. Looks have a lot to do with it, and maybe brains, but it all comes down to their Ethos. Rhetorical skills help you make life unfair in your favor.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
On his blog "wakingupnow" Rob Tish has coined the term "argument-ex-contradictio", describing the behaviour of making several mutually contradictory statements that are worded to sound superficially as if they support each other. He gives a good example in this blog-post: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/the-argument-ex-contradictio. They efficiency of the method would come from the fact that the opponents cannot really mount a counter-argument, since the original argument has no clear line to attack... each counter-argument would somehow seem to be already refudiated by one of the contradictory factoids presented in the original "argument".
I knew at once the sort of rhetoric he means, and I was wondering is there is already some term in use to describe this infuriating bahviour.
Martin

Dear Martin,

Rob's Latin leaves something to be desired, and I'm not sure that a string of self-contradictory ill-logic deserves any label but "mess." To rebut it, there certainly is a clear line of attack; just about any line, in fact. The commentator Rob refers to says this, for instance: "Uganda’s anti-gay bill formally extends the death penalty to homosexuals who commit pre-existing capital crimes." A simple rebuttal would ask, "How can the death penalty be 'extended' to a group already covered by it?"

But the commentator's technique, if there is any, lies not in any abuse of logic but in his refusal to engage at all. Rob's attempts to learn more about the issue led to his being de-friended on the commentator's Facebook page. And here's the rub: most political argument isn't about logic at all. It's about tribes. Get your own tribe more riled up than the enemy's tribe, and you'll win the battle.

The problem, in short, isn't logic at all. It's our increasingly tribal culture.

Fig.