Critical Methodology

The purpose of this essay is to create a rhetorical methodology. In order to do this I will explain my understanding of rhetoric and social movements. I will also be citing examples of some of the major obstacles rhetoricians encounter while creating a theoretical base from which to examine social movements and their artifacts.

In order to begin, I must outline my approach to studying social movements and analyzing their various forms of rhetoric. I feel one of the most efficient ways to examine social rhetoric is to look at each individual movements' and their subset groups' ideologies. This is because a charismatic leader may draw people toward a movement (Simons 3), but if that leader's ideology does not correspond to the people's belief system, then that movement will have no followers. It is the ideological front of a group which states not only what they are striving to change in the greater arena, but also what avenues they are willing to travel to achieve their ends.

By using artifacts such as speeches, flyers, interviews with different members of the groups within the movement, etc... we can discern the rhetorical strategies that each group felt were the most efficient to gather followers and keep them active in the movement (Simons 3). This form of analysis can be used from either the male or female based perspectives as it focuses on ideology and how it is created (Edson 42). This may be seen as linear or not, that is up to each individual researcher. I also believe there are several ways to classify the subgroups of movements and their individual uses of rhetoric. These will be explained a little later.

Before proceeding, I must first explain my definitions of rhetoric and social movements. Understand that these are working definitions. As defining is a symbolic part of the communication process and not part of the natural world, a working definition which is more fluid and therefore more accessible must be used in this kind of research.

I feel the term rhetoric can best be described as an action humans perform that involves the use of symbols to communicate a persuasive message. Or to look at it more simplistically, rhetoric is using verbal and nonverbal language effectively to please or persuade an individual or group to bring about a social, personal, or spiritual change in their behavior. Social can be a change in political policy or in the status quo. Personal can be a change in an individual's political or social ideologies. Spiritual can be a change in a person's preference of an entire religion or only a particular denomination within the construct of Christianity. Spiritual may also be seen as a symbolic reordering of values (Cathcart 237).

The term social movement can best be described as a type of group action. In it informal groupings of individuals or unincorporated organizations focus on specific social or political issues and are interested in bringing about a social or political change. I feel that the overlapping term social movement could be further narrowed into more exact terms. By making several subcategories of social movements we can best decide how to analyze the movement's rhetoric. The three subgroups I propose are traditional social movements, political social movements, and spiritual social movements. There will, of course, be overlap within these subsets, however, any movement can be placed according to the issues which they hope to explore and bring about change in. In a way, we are looking at the logos, pathos and ethos of each movement and how they are combined in its ideology (Hahn and Gonchar 48). And in truth, I am most interested in how these subsets feed and grow from each other's philosophies.

For example, the 60's saw the rise of the student peace movement. This movement sought to help end the war in Vietnam. They sought a change in political policy. Therefore this could be categorized as a political social movement. The 60's also saw a surge of interest in Eastern philosophy and religions. This was helped in part due to the Beatle's and their marked interest in Indian gurus. Consciousness raising was a term coined in the 60's and much of it was born out of Eastern traditions. The surge in persons who converted to Buddhism or who rejected organized religion altogether as a way to create a better society could be seen as a spiritual social movement.

Also, I ask, if there had not been the increase in the acceptance of new ideas from the East, which in turn helped broaden many American's understandings of religion and of philosophy, would the peace movement have been as directional as it was? As the young people of the 60's threw off the shackles of their parents religious and moral views, they found many other avenues to venture down. They created their own morality and spiritual beliefs. These new beliefs very likely helped to fuel the peace movement across the nation.

As you examine any social movement, you can choose to focus in on many things. You may want to examine a movement's leaders, or what the goal of the movement was, or even what methods the movement was willing to use to achieve its goals. I prefer to look at the ideologies within the movement. By looking specifically at what the movement is working toward, we can learn several things. We can find the strategies used to obtain members and keep them working in the movement for long periods of time. We can learn whether or not the movement was working within or outside of the established system (Cathcart 241). And we can learn much about the social climate in which these movements were operating.

For example, in the civil rights movement, each of the many different subgroups in the continuum of ideas had one thing in common. And that one thing was to bring about a more just equality for minorities. This tells us that minorities were not being treated as well as the majority class was. By looking deeper at each of the subgroups ideologies, we can discern more of how this particular group thought about the outside world. For the followers of non-violence, they saw the aggressors as confused or bogged down in centuries of tradition. They saw the aggressors as someone to be loved and someone who must be helped to understand the minorities' point of view.

For others, like the followers of Carmichael, they believed that the aggressors deserved to be pushed back. For if they did not push them, then the minorities' presence and problems could continue to be ignored by the majority. These movements are as much about equal rights as they are about bringing conflicting world views into alignment.

A few of the problems that all rhetoricians face is knowing where to draw boundaries around the movements they seek to study. Or, as some would argue, knowing why there should be no boundaries concerning rhetoric (Sillars 17). There are widely varying definitions of rhetoric and social movements, so each rhetorician must clearly explain their understanding of both and how they intend to use this understanding and apply it to the movements they wish to examine. And of course, there is the age old question of why we should use a rhetorical perspective at all.

In the case of social movements, it is important to study and discover just how each individual movement's groups and their leaders were able to draw people to them. If we have a better understanding of persuasion, then we can arm the vulnerable against unethical persuasive techniques. And ethically, we can find better strategies to help persuade people out of unhealthy activities, such as smoking. I hope I do not sound like a communist. But as I realize that rhetoric, like the rest of communication, is a tool, I also realize that it can be used for both good and bad purposes. It is by understanding rhetorical strategies that we may hope to formulate a way to keep the balance of power even in the rhetoric we are exposed to every day.

One of the things that my approach would endeavor to understand is how ideology influences rhetorical choices. Of course, to do that we have to examine where the ideology first evolved and from what circumstances it evolved. This involves incorporating a limited historical approach. My approach would also show how one type of rhetoric can lead to another. For example, we might examine how the more spiritual rhetoric of Dr. King led to the more political rhetoric of his later speeches. He never stopped using the spiritual approach, but he did incorporate more and more political rhetoric into his discourse.

In conclusion I would like to restate my argument. I feel that by breaking a larger social movement into subgroups and then analyzing the smaller group's ideology, we can learn volumes about where the ideas came from, how they were first formulated, how they were put into practice rhetorically, what the rhetorical strategies did for that group, and finally, how it applies to the larger social movement.