Katherine's notes on mike's text

Rhetoric, Ethics and Manipulation Douglas Parker 1972

intro states: the purpose of the text is a discussion on the thesis that all human relationships are inherently manipulative manipulation is defined as having three forms -physical force -threat of force -rhetoric (rhetoric is defined as including linguistic forms but also non-linguistic forms of culture such as art and music)

the discussion focuses on 2 texts

The New Rhetoric by (multiple authors) -argues that rhetoric is not a poetic, literary or academic form -but is instead a practical form that is a means to an end e.g. getting an audience to agree to something or some purpose. -Rhetoric is the articulation of something unverifiable.

Language, Truth and Logic by AJ Ayer -is written from a logical positivist position -(logical positivism critiques ethics and ontology as unverifiable domains. It uses early Wittgensteinian language games to critique the idea of meaning in language. It makes a distinction between verifiable and unverifiable statements with only verifiable statements having a stable meaning) *sourced from definition outside the text. -Ayer’s text makes a three fold distinction of utterances 1 empirical statements of fact 2 analytical statements of necessary connectedness 3 statements that do not fit either of those categories look like they contain meaning but do not and belong to the unverifiable domains of metaphysics, emotions, religion etc. -an example of 3 is the value judgement - this is not a verifiable statement but a proportional expression of emotion.

The New Rhetoric argues (contrary to Ayer’s) that within the residue of non statements one can still act with reason and logic in the realms of emotions and suggestion.

Parker agrees with this argument.

Parker goes on to argue that education should teach everyone how to use the rhetorical practices outlined in almost textbook style in The New Rhetoric. -if everyone learns how to use rhetoric then it can be an ethical way of resolving differences between people. -however, using rhetoric with people who are not educated in how to use it is just as coercive as using force and threat.

Parker argues that manipulation is a neutral term due to its presence in all human relationships. This is rooted in a human instinct to power which is forged in childhood when children have to manipulate their parents in order to be fed and kept alive. (!)

The only people who are exceptions to the universality of manipulation in relationships are people who have so much power that their very presence can alter a situation for another. Therefore they will not be manipulated to change their behaviour and are thus not exploitable.

Parker makes a distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative manipulation. This is like the difference between business and the practice of a profession.