The Rhetoric of War - Former Yugoslavia Example
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v2i8.206Keywords:
rhetoric, argumentation, fallacies, political discourse, warAbstract
Disintegration of Yugoslavia resulted with war involving Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia. Although war ended in 1995 there are still unsolved issues concerning the cause, responsibility and quilt for more than 2 million refuges (both in Croatia and Bosnia) and more than 200 000 dead. This paper aims to determine characteristics of rhetoric in political discourse preceding the war. Speeches analyzed were delivered in the period of 1989 until 1992. We analyzed 20 speeches of dominant political figures from Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia (Franjo Tu?man, Slobodan Miloševi?, Radovan Karadži?, Vojislav Šešelj and Alija Izetbegovi?) aiming to find argumentation strategies in their speeches (especially usage of topoi considering national questions), system of value, and other rhetorical characteristics and dimensions of persuasion which could show certain similarities and differences between the leaders of three nations. Analysis of argumentation was based on several argumentation handbooks (Weston 1992, Rieke and Sillars 2001, Walton 2004, Tindale 2007). We believed that political leaders will have different argumentation strategies and different system of value since they represented different nations (with different historical background and cultural heritage) and different religions. Results of analysis show however that there are many similarities in argumentation strategies and frequent usage of fallacies (argumetum ad populum, red herring, argumentum ad baculum, hasty generalizations etc.) between analyzed speakers. The main goal of this paper and contribution to the rhetoric of citizenship is determining means of persuasion using analytical tools from rhetoric in order to describe what might be called The Rhetoric of War.
References
Amossy, R. La notion d’ethos de la rhétorique à l’analyse de discours. Amossy, R. (ed.). Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l’ethos. Lausanne. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, (1999): 9–30.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing co, 1999.
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (translated George A. Kennedy). New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M. “Value-based argumentation frameworks”, Proceeding of: 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 19-21, Toulouse, France (2002): 443-454.
Booth, Wayne. “War Rhetoric, Defensible and Indefensible”, A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture and Politics 25, 2 (2005): 221-244.
Brinton, Alan. “Appeal to Angry Emotions”, Informal Logic, X.2 (1988): 77-87
Carey, Christopher. “Rhetorical Means of Persuasion”. In Esseys on Aristotle`s Rhetoric, edited by Ameilie Oksenberg Rorty, 399-416, Berkley: University of California Press, 1996.
Fahenstock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. A Rhetoric of Argument (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1990.
Groarke, Leo. Emotional Arguments: Ancient and Contemporary Views. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation edited by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden and Gordon Mitchell, 677-687, Amsterdam: Rozenberg / Sic Sat
Groarke, Leo and Christopher Tindale. Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking (5th Ed) Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Holbrooke, Richard. To End A War. New York: Modern Library, 1999.
Leff, Michael. “Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King`s Letter from Birmingham Jail” In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, edited by Frans van Eemeren et al. 255-268. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Macagno, Fabrizio and Douglas Walton. (2008). Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements. Informal Logic 28,3 (2008): 203-228.
Oksenberg Rorty, Amelie. “Structuring Rhetoric”. In Esseys on Aristotle`s Rhetoric, edited by Ameilie Oksenberg Rorty, 34-56, Berkley: University of California Press
Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
Rieke, D. Richard and Malcom O. Sillars. Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. (5th Ed). New York: Longman, 2001.
Simons, W. Herbert. “Requirements, Problems and Strategies: A Theory of Persuasion for Social Movements”. In Readings on Rhetoric of Social Protests edited by Charles E. Morris III and Stephen Howard Browne, Pennsylvania: Strata Publishing, Incorporated, 2001.
Stewart, Charles and Craig Allan Smith and Robert E. Denton Jr. Persuasion and Social Movements (4th Ed). Illinois: Waveland Press, 2001.
Tindale W. Christopher. Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. New York: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Tindale W. Christopher. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications, 2004.
Vejvoda, Ivan. “Why did War happened?” In The Violent Dissolution of Yugoslavia – causes, dynamics and effects, edited by Miroslav Hadžić. Belgrade: Centre for Civil-Military Relations-Goragraf, 2004.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
