Relationship Between Rhetoric And Social Conflict example essay topic

The Relationship between Rhetoric and Social Conflict In society there are daily occurrences that happen as a result of rhetoric, which then question and mold our individuality. How we react to these responses define us as a society and can then cause us to have a conflict socially. These occurrences challenge our perceptions allowing us to think independently about each issue. Without the linkage of rhetoric and conflict, we would have a difficult time justifying our understanding of these issues. A reaction to rhetoric can also characterize us from each other in a way that creates a singular identity. This individuality combined with the identities of others, make up our community and allow rhetoric and conflict to occur almost naturally.

To further explain why rhetoric and conflict are so important we must understand the importance of this issue, in trying to relate everyday activities as examples of rhetoric and conflict. Our Society creates certain rhetorical ideologies, which are contained in social institutions, such as churches, communities, or clubs, in which conformity is a must. These ideologies bring people together to stand behind a common interest and fight for their own beliefs, morals, and values. It is when these social institutions collide with each other that social conflict is formed and problems arise. In order to understand the relationship between rhetoric and social conflict one must be able to define these terms adequately. Rhetoric is the ability to use words effectively in order to receive a response that is either positive or negative.

To create a positive response, a person might appeal to the emotions of another who is sympathetic to the situation or who is currently involved with the same experience. They may use familiar experiences and memories to help the response take its shape. An example of this would be in the article ' The Cigarette as Representational Ideograph in the Debate over Environmental Tobacco Smoke'; by Mark Moore. Moore describes both sides of this controversy of smoker and anti smoker rights, but when reading this article both sides are conformed to their own beliefs and support them quite well.

'Smokers discuss their rights as an American and their right to liberty, while anti-smoking activists talk about the hazards of second hand smoke discovered by scientific knowledge'; (Moore 48). The ideas of both sides make up an ideology, which is expressed over and over again through their justifications. Only a smoker can sympathize with a fellow smoker when explaining the right to be able to smoke in public. The same goes for the opposite view, only a non-smoker can understand and relate to the effects of second hand smoke, and only they can justify why they feel it is wrong. On the other hand, a negative response is just as easy to elicit. Depending on ones beliefs, rhetoric will come into effect when there is a situation that is not agreeable by both parties.

How this situation is illustrated is that rhetoric is the approach of the issue, the disagreement is the conflict, and the two arguments being expressed is the social interaction. Rhetoric is the way in which the conflict is explained while conflict is the difference of two or more opinions. It is developed through a wide range of typical interactions between beliefs that are in conflict. Simmel can describe an example of this interaction in the article 'Competition'; . 'In this article Simmel talks about competition as a conflict consisting of two parties. Each party tries to get their point across in a way so that social order is formed.

This allows for the creation of different ideas so one person can begin to understand the other through a series of mental conflicts'; (Simmel 13-55). Another example of this would be the continued idea of always having to win. This theory goes beyond the initial prize, and illustrates an example of the structure of enactment. Simmel describes this structure of enactment as the norms or customs given to a particular situation. Everyone has there own thoughts, which are then placed on a value system. Depending on the importance of an issue one might attend to something that is more meaningful.

Since this concept is not the same there is no immediate outcome to the problem. What this does entail is the way in which conflict forces social order, which allows for the identity of the person as long as the community. Without this or these types of conflicts we would not be able to communicate with one another. Communication reflects our common unity and is logical for us to conform to an idea or concept that best supports our own. Without competition and the need for conflict, we as a community would not exist. An article found in Newsweek 'Technology School Conflict'; describes a similar but distinct case of controversy in schools.

This can be shown as an example of how rhetoric and conflict occurs almost illegitimately in our lives. One way to establish this, as a social issue is to break it down and examine what the conflict really involves. This article talks about whether gifted children have the right to attend a public school outside their district, and if so where should the money for their tuition go. The two parties involved are the parents of these children and the school board. The conflict in this case is whether something is right or wrong, otherwise known as the prize to be won. This situation deals with more than just the boundaries of each district; it also ties into the beliefs of what is best for these children.

Since this issue deals with children, who are not identified as being able to speak for themselves, it is very sensitive. Most would agree that a gifted child should be able to reach their full potential and denying them of that would be unethical. This idea of what is considered right is the structure of enactment, which is the way in which the community approaches this issue. The values of everyone concerned are identified by the importance of this issue and the attention given by the community makes this issue social. Therefore the conflict in this case is the admittance of these Arlington school children. The rhetoric deals with the way in which the school board approaches this problem, although there is not a specific outcome, all these ideas and approaches will come into effect while reviewing this conflict.

The relationship between rhetoric and conflict are crucial to our understanding of these concepts. To truly understand why rhetoric is such an important factor in conflict one must be able to distinguish the difference. Rhetoric makes the conflict a conflict without it no one would be able to express themselves logically. Without rhetoric our own ideas individually and socially would not be able to grow. We are given the opportunity to discuss and feel our own beliefs, which is the key to our understanding of the surrounding world.