English 505
Rhetorical Theory
Session Sixteen Notes
Goals/Objectives:
1) To begin to understand Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm Theory
2) To begin to understand Ernest Bormann’s Symbolic Convergence Theory
3) To begin to understand the theories of Jurgen Habermas, especially the notions of the Public Sphere and The Life World
vs. The System
Questions/Main Ideas (Please
Other Dramatistic Perspectives
write these down as you think
Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm
of them)
Ernest Bormann’s Symbolic Convergence Theory
Fisher
Fisher (1987) proposed a theory of rhetoric in which dramatic stories take on the role of
arguments
He claimed that all people are essentially storytellers and that we constantly evaluate and
choose from the stories we hear
Fisher
Like Burke, Fisher argued that our world is created through symbols and thus by using
symbolic structures – stories – we can induce others to see the world through our eyes
Fisher
Stories, according to Fisher, have substance and weight because they reflect how we see our
world
Fisher says that humans are “essentially storytellers”
Fisher
That is, our rhetoric can be considered a story, with a plot, characters, and other attributes
of good fiction
Second, instead of using strict rules of logic, such as inductive and deductive reasoning
Fisher
We use “good reasons” when making decisions and persuading others
Good reasons use traditional ideas about logic, along with ideas about the values the
storyteller shares with his or her audience
Fisher
What is meant by “good reasons” varies – to some degree – among situations, genres, and
media communication
Finally, “the world as we know it is a set of stories that must be chosen among”
Fisher
Viewing communication as a narrative is meaningful for people in a wide variety of
cultures and communities because “we all live out narratives in our lives and because we
understand our own lives in terms of narratives”
Fisher
Humans use narrative rationality when evaluating the stories they hear, which is based on
two standards: narrative probability and narrative fidelity
Narrative probability asks whether the story is consistent with itself
Fisher
It concerns the degree to which the story “hangs together”
In other words, this standard looks at whether the story makes sense by itself
Fisher
Fisher argues that stories must have structural coherence, material coherence, and
characterological coherence
Structural coherence refers to whether the story contradicts itself
Fisher
A witness who testifies in court and says something different than he or she had said
previously lacks structural coherence
Material coherence refers to how well the story accounts for facts that are known to be
true
Fisher
A witness who testifies that the car in the accident was green, when all other witnesses
claim it was red lacks material coherence
Characterological coherence questions the reliability of the characters in the story
Fisher
A witness accused of murder but who is claiming innocence would be difficult to believe if
he or she did not display some emotion about being accused
Fisher
Narrative Fidelity refers to the individual components of stories and the degree to which
these components make sense to that audience
Fisher
Thus, probability concerns the story itself and fidelity refers to the connection between the
story and the audience
Fisher explains that fidelity questions “whether they represent accurate assertions about
social reality”
Fisher
Fidelity can be understood by looking at five concepts, fact, relevance, consequence,
consistency, and transcendent issue
The question of fact explores the values that are embedded in a story
Fisher
The question of relevance concerns the appropriateness of the values to the nature of the
decision
The question of consequence examines the effects of adhering to a particular value set
when making a decision
Fisher
The question of consistency asks if the values of the story confirm one’s personal
experience
The question of transcendent issue asks if the values in question “constitute the ideal
basis for human conduct”
Bormann
Bormann’s theory uses a dramatic metaphor to explain how individuals use rhetoric to
form common ways of seeing the world
Bormann
It focuses on how “Individuals in rhetorical transactions create subjective worlds of
common expectations and meanings”
Bormann
Bormann believes that when individuals in small groups communicate, they essentially
create and share stories, or fantasies, to fulfill some need
The word fantasy is not used here in the conventional sense
Bormann
Fantasies, according to this theory, are very real events that happen to people and groups
In essence, a fantasy can be defined as a shared experience between people
Bormann
For example, a fantasy may include experiences you and some friends had on a recent trip
together, the image that CSUB projects to others, or the ideas and stories told by candidates
in a political campaign
Bormann
Fantasy sharing is used to deal with conflict, to solidify relationships, or to express
emotion
Stories also help the group create a shared culture, or way of seeing the world
Bormann
Some fantasies are told so often that only a word or two is needed for the group to burst into
laughter or understand what was meant
Thus, the simple act of storytelling is an important tool for group communication
Bormann
Bormann theorized that group fantasy sharing can be used to explain how larger groups of
people create shared visions of reality based on the stories they share
Bormann
A political campaign, for instance, can be viewed as a set of stories that are shared among
voters
Members of a rhetorical community view an unfolding fantasy much as they would a movie
or a play
Bormann
Fantasy themes are the contents of the story that are retold by group members
Sometimes, the group develops particular fantasies that have similar plot outlines, scenes,
and characters
Bormann
These repeated patterns of exchanges are called fantasy types
As the fantasy themes “chain out” among the group members, the group forms a rhetorical
vision
Bormann
A common way of seeing the world based on the process of sharing fantasies
Bormann states, “A rhetorical vision is constructed from fantasy themes that chain out in
face-to-face interacting groups, . . .
Bormann
. . . in speaker-audience transactions, in viewers of television broadcasts, in listeners to
radio programs, and in all the diverse settings for public and intimate communication in a
given society”
Bormann
Rhetorical visions are based on typical characterizations and plot lines
In fact, future fantasy themes can be based on existing rhetorical visions to spark
predictable emotional responses
Bormann
Rhetorical critics using symbolic convergence theory to understand rhetoric must examine a
number of rhetorical artifacts related to a dramatic incident
Bormann
Then, the critic looks for patterns of characterizations, dramatic situations, and settings
The critic then reconstructs the chaining-out process to understand how rhetorical vision
came to be believed
Bormann
Fantasy theme – Eating foods that are low in carbs can lead to sustained weight loss
Fantasy type – The latest diet will help people lose weight quickly and easily
Bormann
Chaining out – The appearance of diet books in bookstores, new foods in grocery store, and
media representations
Rhetorical vision - Diets that are low in carbs are healthy and useful for managing weight
Habermas
Habermas’s theory, which essentially seeks to use rhetoric to ensure democracy and
“complete the project of modernity” (thereby correcting the imbalances of society), uses
the notion of the Public Sphere and distinguishes between the lifeworld and the system
Habermas
In the system, money and power dominate
It includes business and commercial enterprises as well as the government, which
codifies the interests of capitalists
Habermas
Opposed to the system is the lifeworld, which is the realm of human social interaction,
such as relationships with family and friends
Habermas
Habermas believes that the system “colonizes” the lifeworld – our social interactions are
being influenced and framed by the interests of capitalism
Habermas
Social pathologies or ideologies arise when attempts to “meet the requirements of system
maintenance spill over into domains of the lifeworld”
The system side comes to dominate the lifeworld side
Habermas
EX: people spend long hours working rather than being with family and friends
Habermas also believes that our political discussions are influenced by the interests of
business
Habermas
And that capitalism controls the kinds of political and personal decisions people make,
which he sees as being harmful to democracy
Habermas
Once colonization occurs, the goal of understanding is confounded by the instrumental goal
of making money and/or achieving power and status
Habermas
Colonization also means that there is less need for consensus through communication
because disputes are resolved and decisions are made by recourse to formal regulations,
laws, and especially established structures of power
Habermas
Mutual understanding is less likely and personal autonomy declines
An example of the conflict: the ongoing debate about abortion in the U.S.
Habermas
Lifeworld influences are critical to the abortion debate in that each concerned party brings
beliefs about religion, individual autonomy, rights to privacy, morality, and health – all
dimensions of the lifeworld – to discussions about abortion
Habermas
Technological systems also play a role that, paradoxically, is helpful to both sides
Recent developments in medical technology mean that the life of a premature infant can be
saved earlier and earlier in the pregnancy
Habermas
Thus raising issues of viability important to pro-life advocates
On the other hand, developments in abortion technology make abortions safer later in a
pregnancy, a fact that benefits pro-choice arguments
Habermas
The resulting technocratization of the debate (a critical theorist would argue) shows the
dominance of system over lifeworld and means that abortion as a right – personal or
constitutional – is a fact subordinated to the technical abilities of medical experts
Habermas
Ultimately, Habermas seeks to develop ways of freeing our personal interests from that of
business and the government
The Public Sphere
Habermas
To counter the colonization of the lifeworld, he developed the idea of the public sphere,
which involves the use of rhetoric between people who presumably have interest and
knowledge in what is being discussed
Habermas
Additionally, the individuals are able to reach some kind of consensus about the issues, and
their decision is reflected by some kind of action
Habermas
The practices of the European civil society in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
served as the model for Habermas’s view of the public sphere
Habermas
He envisions a bourgeois public sphere that would rationally discuss issues of importance
to a society and advise the government on making decisions that were in the public’s best
interest
Habermas
The public sphere acts as a check on the autocratic activities of the government and ensures
that the people’s rights are protected
Habermas
The public sphere should carry out its deliberations using open debate in which citizens
have the ability to express themselves
Access and openness are critical
Habermas
With the advent of advanced capitalism, however, the idealized public sphere ceased to
exist
Habermas
As private interests began to take over the political domain, the public sphere no longer was
a place for rational discussion and consensus
Private interests sought to influence the public sphere
Habermas
In turn, the public sphere lost its ability to monitor the power of the state
The public sphere is instead an area where competition exists between different interest
groups with conflicting goals, leading to an imbalance of interests
Habermas
In response, Habermas articulates a threefold schema for human knowledge, each
dimension of which is necessary for an effective functioning of the public sphere
Habermas
Each of these interests stems from basic needs inherent in the human condition
Work is the basic means by which humans provide for the material aspects of existence by
manipulating various aspects of their environment and bringing it under their control
Habermas
Interaction is the social realm
Fundamentally, humans are social creatures, and they must learn to live and function in
groups to survive
Habermas
Language and other symbolic forms of communication are the means by which humans
create and sustain social groups
Thus, interaction involves using symbols to achieve mutual understanding
Habermas
Power or domination realizes that, because humans live in social groups, the organization
of those groups necessarily creates hierarchies and thus differential power arrangements
Habermas
Although power or domination is just as unavoidable as work and interaction, all humans
have a natural or fundamental interest in freeing themselves from unnecessary forms of
power and control that manifest as distorted communication or ideologies
Habermas
Becoming conscious of these ideologies is the first step toward liberation from them and
toward greater freedom and autonomy
Universal Pragmatics
Habermas
Habermas then locates a rationality that can rejuvenate the lifeworld in language itself,
which he terms universal pragmatics, or the study of the general or universal aspects of
language
Habermas
His search to discover the conditions for communicative rationality in language use led him
to the most elementary unit of communication – the speech act
He is concerned with three major types of speech acts
Habermas
Constatives are speech acts that serve primarily to assert a truth claim
“The grass is green”
“This meeting is adjourned”
Habermas
The speaker tells others how things are, and the listener agrees, at least temporarily, to
accept the validity of the asserted truth claim
Habermas
When this kind of speech act is used, the focus for the speaker is the objective world of
facts or states of affairs, the speaker’s intention is to be believed, and the external world of
objective facts is the focus of discussion
Habermas
Regulatives govern or regulate in some way the relationship between speaker and hearer in
regards to shared norms – what should or should not be done
Habermas
Commands, prohibitions, promises, and requests are examples of this type of speech act
Habermas
The principal validity claim asserted in such acts is to the rightness or appropriateness of
a given statement according to shared norms between speaker and listener
Habermas
Avowals or expressives refer to speech acts that correspond to the function of expression –
to the disclosure of feelings, wishes, intentions, and the like
In these speech acts, speakers make a claim of truthfulness about their internal, subjective
world
Habermas
Validity Claims
Habermas then connects speech acts to rationality by showing how each type of speech act
stresses a different validity claim
Habermas
For Habermas, validity is a rational notion that suggests that a speech act is grounded in a
particular reality domain and creates a particular relationship to the other participants in
the interaction
Habermas
Habermas posits that these validity claims are recognized by all participants as obligations
to fulfill when speaking
When someone performs a speech act, all parties involved accept and operate under certain
validity claims
Habermas
Validity corresponds to three types of speech acts
Constative speech acts focus on the condition of truth
Habermas
Regulative speech acts are concerned primarily with the appropriateness of the norms
operating in a particular context – the socially accepted rules in operation that are binding
on all participants
Habermas
Finally, avowals raise the validity claim of truthfulness, or the obligation to show that the
stated intention behind behavior is the actual motive in operation
The Ideal Speech Situation
Habermas
In presupposing the possibility of consensual action in the process of using speech acts,
Habermas suggests that every individual, in a situation in which serious argumentation
occurs, is anticipating what he calls the “ideal speech situation”
Habermas
This situation is characterized by “(a) a lack of domination, hierarchy, internal neurosis, and
external oppression; (b) equality of all participants as asserters and criticizers of truth
claims; and (c) the absense of all power except the power of argument itself”
Habermas
Habermas’s ideal speech situation should not be taken as anything but an ideal
He does not intend for the ideal speech situation to be realized in a concrete or utopian
sense
Habermas
Rather, its value lies in its function as an assumption that is made whenever individuals
enter into a conversation, thus supplying communication with a rational foundation
Habermas
In Habermas’s view, the ideal speech situation is both necessary and unrealized
Because communication would be necessary in an ideal speech situation, it functions to
regulate the interaction and facilitate the equal access of all participants
Habermas
At the same time, the possibility of actually achieving such symmetry and equality in all
conversational encounters is unrealistic
Habermas
What is important is that the ideal speech situation sets up the possibility of validity claims
that are negotiated and agreed upon by the speakers and hearers themselves
Habermas
He is able to claim that the “good and true life” – a life of truth, freedom, and justice – is
anticipated in every successful act of speech
Habermas
Thus, he is also able to argue that “the ideal political situation is one in which citizens
control their own destiny by taking an active part in the decisions that concern them”
Summary/Minute Paper: