Stir em Up!

Wayne Booth discusses what he calls "the perversions of rhetorical stance" in his essay The Rhetorical Stance.  Of the list of "perversions" the second one that he discusses is the "advertiser's stance" which suggests the "undervaluing of the subject and the overvaluing pure effect."  Unfortunately, it is far too easy to uncover examples of this sensationalizing the argument with the "controversial of argumentative" assertions instead of exploring or promoting positions based upon information.  The irony is that just as the audience is engaged in the subject from a pseudo-intellectual emotional position, they are obliviously acknowledging and empowering limiting marginalizing tropes that they think they are fighting against.  Take for example, the panel type discussions often found on television shows and news shows.  There is a mediator between two opposing views who is usually from some marginalized group, women, LGBT, or etc.  The opposing views are often highlighted by stark symbolic divisions presented in either visual cues like gender, race, or political positions.  As, the debate ensues (pure entertainment) the audience is tricked into thinking that each side is offering information.  However, what the audience experiences is an emotional affirmation of their subconscious and conscious positions.  If there is to be a positive in teaching rhetoric, a goal or purpose, it should be to empower young writer's and audiences with the ability to uncover perversions like this so that real discussions, arguments and debates point towards the exposition of information that will empower people to make choices that lead to innovative change.