{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

MGW10-GT-A2-Framework

MGW10-GT-A2-Framework - MGW 2010 Gottbreht/Thomas A2...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MGW 2010 A2 Framework Gottbreht/Thomas A2 Framework A2 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (1) ................................................................................................................ 2 Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (2) ................................................................................................................ 3 Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (3) ................................................................................................................ 4 A2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Ground ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Limits ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Education (1) ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Education (2) ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Rules Bad (1) .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Rules Bad (2) .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 A2 Shivley .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Switchside Debate Bad ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Ontology Good ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Epistemology Good (1) ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Epistemology Good (2) ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Epistemology Good (3) ........................................................................................................................................... 17 A2 Objectivity/ Truth/ Science (1) ........................................................................................................................... 18 A2 Objectivity/ Truth/ Science (2) ........................................................................................................................... 19 Policy Making Bad (1) ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Policy Making Bad (2) ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Role Playing Bad (1) ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Role Playing Bad (2) ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Role Playing Bad (3) ............................................................................................................................................... 24 Role Playing Bad (4) ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Role Playing Bad (5) ............................................................................................................................................... 26 State Bad ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Deliberative Democracy Bad ................................................................................................................................... 28 Sex-Based Criticism (1) .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Sex-Based Criticism (2) .......................................................................................................................................... 30 1
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MGW 2010 A2 Framework Gottbreht/Thomas Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (1) Frameworks Open To Alternative Arguments/Viewpoints Are Key To Break Down Patriarchy and Systems of Dominance Foss and Griffen 1995 (Sonja, associate professor of Communication Studies at Ohio State, Cindy, assistant professor of Speech Communication at Colorado State, “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for Invitational Rhetoric, Communication Monographs, March)Professor of Speech Communication, University of Denver, HC) The introduction of invitational rhetoric to the array of rhetorical forms available also serves a greater heuristic , inventive function than rhetoric previously has allowed. Traditional theories of rhetoric occur within preimposed or preconceived frameworks that are reflexive and reinforce the vocabularies and tenets of those frameworks . In rhetoric in which the rhetor seeks to impose change on others, an idea is adapted to the audience or is presented in ways that will be most persuasive to the audience; as a result, the idea stays lodged within the confines of the rhetorical system in which it was framed . Other may challenge the idea but only within the confines of the framework of the dispute already established. The inventive potential of rhetoric is restricted as the interaction converts the idea to the experience required by the framework. Invitational rhetoric, on the other hand, aims at converting experience “to one of the many views which are indeterminately possible ” (Holmberg, 1977, p. 237). As a result, much is open in invitational rhetoric that is not in traditional rhetorics —the potential of the audiences to contribute to the generation of ideas is enhanced, the means used to present ideas are not those that limit the ideas to what is most persuasive for the audience, the view of the kind of environment that can be created in the interaction is expanded, and the ideas that can be considered multiply. The privileging of inventions in invitational rhetoric allows for the development of interpretations, perspectives, courses of actions, and solutions to problems different from those allowed in traditional models of rhetoric . Rather than the discovery of how to make a case, invitational rhetoric employs invention to discover more cases
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern