When attempting to persuade an audience on your outlook on a topic, how acceptable is the use of illogical reasoning in order to give more credibility to an argument? How does the art of discourse affect audiences with the intent of learning more about a topic? The issue of gender equity is one which has sparked a plethora of debate, revealing differing perspectives on the topic whilst collecting large amounts of controversy due to its contentious nature. According to The International Journal of Human Resource Management, the affair at hand can be attributed to the case that “Analyses conducted by government and non-profit organizations consistently demonstrate that female workers earn significantly less than male workers” (Yanadori, Gould & Kulik, 2018, 1). In an interview hosted by Channel 4 News titled 'Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism' psychologist and university professor Jordan Peterson, is interviewed and confronted about the arguments he has proposed on the validity and existence of the gender pay gap. There are two prominent views taken in the debate. The first argument being made by Professor Jordan Peterson is the fact that based-on analysis, the pay gap does exist but is not specifically attributed to gender rather, several different factors such as agreeability and conscientiousness. The opposing stance taken by the journalist, Cathy Newman is that there is a pay gap and gender is a significant element contributing to its existence. Throughout the interview, Peterson’s points are refuted and met with opposing arguments. Both individuals employ the use of various rhetorical devices to debate over the existence of the pay gap solely due to gender, with drastically contrasting outlooks on the issue.
This essay aims to explore the effectiveness of rhetorical appeals as opposed to fallacies, whether it constitutes ethical or manipulative persuasion and how context influences the appropriateness of fallacious argumentation. Furthermore, this essay will also highlight the power of discourse and how it can be used by authoritative figures to instigate change in society. Through the careful examination of the rhetorical strategies and the ethicality of discourse, we can better understand the complex ways speakers use the elements of language to sway audiences and how rhetoric is used to persuade to a greater extent in politics and society.
The utilisation of rhetorical appeals allows for a speaker to give greater integrity to their arguments without misleading an audience. When looking to exchange notions in a constructive and meaningful manner, rhetorical appeals are profoundly effective. During the conversation, Jordan Peterson makes the use of rhetorical appeals to persuade the viewers in his favour. The most commonly used appeal being logos, which can be defined as a “logical, rationality-based form of discourse” (McCormack & Krista, 2014, p. 131). An example of this can be observed when statistics and logical reasoning is presented by a speaker to give greater integrity to their points and to weaken opposing arguments. This appeal can be seen in use when Peterson elaborates in response to a question on the agreeability of women affecting the pay gap. He mentions that it is only one factor in a “multivariate equation that predicts salary” and how it only accounts for “5 % of the variance”. The complex use of jargon and statistics in these replies illustrate how appeals to logos can render an argument more persuasive since it draws upon empirical evidence to support his perspectives. Being an academic himself, Peterson’s use of logos leads us to believe his target audience to also be of scholars. Hence, the fact that he applies reasoning and causation to support his stance dismisses the opportunity to mislead or confuse an audience, thereby fostering an in-depth and convincing argument.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Context is an essential element to consider when evaluating the justness of fallacious arguments. In rhetoric, arguments need not be able to be logically proven to be deemed valid or acceptable. This is exemplified by the following quote from Philosophy & Rhetoric where Van Eemeren & Grootendorst (1995, p. 122) elaborate on argumentation in the discipline of rhetoric. “Lawyers, philosophers, and other scholars rarely produce perfect formal proof for their theses. Yet there is no reason to consider their justifications totally unreasonable or irrational” (Van Eemeren et al., 1995, p. 122). Here, it can be understood that the rhetorical situation is an influential component when judging a statement. Thus, “The realm of reasonableness and rationality should, therefore, not be restricted to statements that are capable of being verified by empirical observation and deductively valid formal proof” (Van Eemeren et al, 1995, p. 122). This is also evident when Minot (1981, p. 222) proposes that “arguments that are fallacious in one context may prove to be quite solid in another context”. In this quote, the author attempts to shed light on an alternative perspective of informal fallacies. He suggests that rhetoric is dynamic depending on the type of audience and how adherent they are to a speaker’s ideologies. Minot elaborates by expanding on the importance of context, a concept which is misunderstood and not particularly influential when logicians determine if an assertion is fallacious or not (Minot, 1981, p. 222). Since context is generally a determinant in the equation of informal fallacies, the author suggests that arguments should be viewed rhetorically in contrast to a more logical perspective (Minot, 1982, p. 222).
Rhetorical fallacies are repeatedly committed throughout the debate, the most notable being the strawman fallacy. This is depicted when interviewer Cathy Newman mentions the phrase “so you're saying” before distorting Peterson’s actual argument. This fallacy is defined as the “a misrepresentation of someone's commitments in order to refute that person's argument” (Walton, 1996, p. 115), which is what the interviewer is guilty of in this scenario. Newman utilises this fallacy since her opinion is logically flawed. Thus, in an effort to give credibility to her stance, she intentionally negatively rehashes Peterson’s argument to challenge his integrity. It could be observed that her use of fallacies is done in bad faith with a motive to discredit logically valid points. On the other hand, one may argue that none of the arguments in a rhetorical sense are formal fallacies and cannot be judged as such. Thus, the evaluation boils down to whether or not Newman’s arguments are ethically acceptable given the rhetorical situation. Conclusively, it can be seen that context is paramount when considering the fairness of argumentation.
We can further explore the nature of situational appropriateness by considering how communication exists within a context. To quote from Bitzer (1992, p. 4) “There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience”. Exigence, defined as “an imperfection marked by urgency” (Bitzer, 1992, p. 4) in the scenario of the debate would be classified as the potential difference in pay between genders which brings about controversy. The rhetorical audience in the debate would consist of those who “are capable of being influenced by discourse” (Blitzer, 1992, p. 4), which in Peterson’s case, would be academics and scholars due to his use of rhetorical appeals to Logos. Conversely, Newman’s audience appears to be the general public as she utilises fallacies to prove her points whilst misleading the audience. Lastly, constraints, which are the things that limit discourse and in the case of the debate, would be the choice rhetorical devices both participants utilise to prove an argument. This is a factor which influences Newman’s hostility as she has solid preconceived beliefs which constrain her ability to observe the facts of the matter and provide rationalized arguments.
Based on the rhetorical analysis performed throughout this essay, we can extrapolate the Jordan Peterson’s use of rhetorical appeals, specifically, Logos, is more effective and ethical than Cathy Newman’s fallacious and deceptive arguments. This is since they mislead audiences into believing opinions based on illogical reasoning rather than Peterson’s logically sound reasoning. We have also analysed the importance of context in regards to evaluating the ethically and acceptability of fallacious argumentation. This essay also reveals how modern-day issues such as the gender pay gap can be misunderstood as a result of the fallacious and deceptive argument authoritative speakers present to persuade audiences in their favour. Consequently, audiences should be educated on the art of discourse as a more rhetorically aware audience will be able to recognise when they are being misled, allowing them to gain an understanding of the facts about a certain topic.
Stuck on your essay?
