Telling arguments : a Weaverian analysis of Supreme Court cases regarding civil rights and affirmative action

Reno, Cathy, "Telling arguments : a Weaverian analysis of Supreme Court cases regarding civil rights and affirmative action" (2007). This paper is part of the requirements for honors in rhetoric and communication studies. The signatures below, by the advisor, a departmental reader, and a representative of the departmental honors committee, demonstrate that Cathy Reno has met all the requirements needed to receive honors in rhetoric and communication studies. Introduction In his book, The Ethics ofRhetoric, influential rhetoric and culture scholar Richard M. Weaver articulates a framework called Grammatical Categories. These classifications are used to identify both the motivation and implications of arguments. There are four discrete categories. The first, and least difficult to formulate is the argument from circumstance. Here an individual bases his reasoning on the conditions surroundhg the case. Weaver labels ,. this, "the nearest of all to purest expediency" (Weaver, 1985). To illustratethis point, Weaver depicts an individual employing this method: "'The city must be surrendered because the besiegers are so numerous"' (Weaver, 1985). The individual in this case examines only the situation exactly in front of him rather than taking into account the plethora of other issues affecting it. The persuader gives so much credence to the :here and now' that he avoids considering the consequences or future implications of his decision (Weaver, 1985).. . The second Grammatical Category is cause and effect, which links an action to a consequence. This is not extraordinarily difficult to construct, which generally leads to a lukewarm outcome. For instance, one may attempt to sway his constituents into persisting in a questionable war by warnhg them if the task is notcompleted now, it will have to be addressed in the future. Thus, the predicted result is intended to persuade. Weaver asserts that such a process is generally utilized by individuals who "go all out for action; they are radicals" (Weaver 1985). It is tempting to evaluate situations using this rubric since it is one we have been trained to recognize since childhood, however it is not as effective as the third and fourth categories. The third category is called the argument from similitude in which, as the name implies, the rhetor looks for inherent connections between certain objects or ideas. Weaver describes these as: "essential (though not exhaustive) correspondences" (Weaver, 1985'). An individual will try to discover an intrinsic relationship between his example and another, and transfer the qualities of …