Page 164 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 164
What Do We Know about the World?
Action is possible only when we have interpreted the situation and have
defined what it really is so that we will be able to behave accordingly.
Meeting a group of people in the street we make an instant decision as
to the fact that those are tourists who lost their way and ask for help in
finding their way to the city center, or a gang of sports fans willing to ex-
press their anger for their team’s defeat. Definition of the situation turns
out to be one of the basic human activities in social contacts.
From the vantage point of the political rhetoric it is particularly im-
portant to consider the consequences of the adopted definition. Inde-
pendently of the fact of whether the situation definition is true, the ef-
fects of its adoption are always true. If we interpret the behaviour of a
young man approaching us in the street as a threat, we will start run-
ning regardless of the fact that he wanted only to ask us what time it was.
Let us check how it works in a political situation. On April 10, 2010
Poland experienced a trauma of a great magnitude – the presidential
plane crashed in Smolensk in Russia. Almost a hundred of the most im-
portant persons in the country perished, including the president and his
wife, generals, MPs, high level state officials and representatives of many
institutions and organizations. The interpretation of this event still
splits the Polish society and the political scene. In the public discourse
two totally different narratives are present. The first assumes that the
catastrophe was an ordinary airplane crash, the causes of which are be-
ing investigated by a special commission. According to the other defini-
tion of the situation that tragedy had been planned and it was an assault
against President Kaczynski. The consequences of adopting one of the
versions result in definite type of behaviour. People, who are convinced
that it was an assault see the present president and prime minister as trai-
tors, who want to push the truth under the carpet. In effect they organ-
ize protests and demonstrations demanding full exposure of the truth.
And thus in the case of the interactive definition of the situation
words create the circumstances. The situation is the effect of the words
used. What was uttered produces concrete deeds which change reality.
And though it might seem that the two terms rhetoric situation and the
situation definition exclude each other, in the language of politics they
are complementary. A speaking politician expresses specific words on
the one hand because he must utter them (he is a prime minister or the
leader of the opposition etc.) but on the other hand he utters them be-
cause he wants to achieve something, to influence the audience.
The third important concept we want to discuss is the persuasive
definition. It is a type of a definition, which provides a presentation of
Action is possible only when we have interpreted the situation and have
defined what it really is so that we will be able to behave accordingly.
Meeting a group of people in the street we make an instant decision as
to the fact that those are tourists who lost their way and ask for help in
finding their way to the city center, or a gang of sports fans willing to ex-
press their anger for their team’s defeat. Definition of the situation turns
out to be one of the basic human activities in social contacts.
From the vantage point of the political rhetoric it is particularly im-
portant to consider the consequences of the adopted definition. Inde-
pendently of the fact of whether the situation definition is true, the ef-
fects of its adoption are always true. If we interpret the behaviour of a
young man approaching us in the street as a threat, we will start run-
ning regardless of the fact that he wanted only to ask us what time it was.
Let us check how it works in a political situation. On April 10, 2010
Poland experienced a trauma of a great magnitude – the presidential
plane crashed in Smolensk in Russia. Almost a hundred of the most im-
portant persons in the country perished, including the president and his
wife, generals, MPs, high level state officials and representatives of many
institutions and organizations. The interpretation of this event still
splits the Polish society and the political scene. In the public discourse
two totally different narratives are present. The first assumes that the
catastrophe was an ordinary airplane crash, the causes of which are be-
ing investigated by a special commission. According to the other defini-
tion of the situation that tragedy had been planned and it was an assault
against President Kaczynski. The consequences of adopting one of the
versions result in definite type of behaviour. People, who are convinced
that it was an assault see the present president and prime minister as trai-
tors, who want to push the truth under the carpet. In effect they organ-
ize protests and demonstrations demanding full exposure of the truth.
And thus in the case of the interactive definition of the situation
words create the circumstances. The situation is the effect of the words
used. What was uttered produces concrete deeds which change reality.
And though it might seem that the two terms rhetoric situation and the
situation definition exclude each other, in the language of politics they
are complementary. A speaking politician expresses specific words on
the one hand because he must utter them (he is a prime minister or the
leader of the opposition etc.) but on the other hand he utters them be-
cause he wants to achieve something, to influence the audience.
The third important concept we want to discuss is the persuasive
definition. It is a type of a definition, which provides a presentation of
