Chapter 1 pr 5 Rhetoric Notes

Mythos

• Definition (Fowler): mythos means "significant speech," a "pronouncement, not just utterance"; it denotes the whole package when in play, and when mythos is in play, something is at stake.
• Mythos as authority: mythos represents speech with cultural or moral authority, similar to the old myths about the Olympian gods that carried weight for the ancient Greeks.
• Sophists and authority: for Jarratt, grappling with authority was central to Sophist rhetoric; mythos comprises ideas, narratives, or traditions that hold cultural authority and are difficult to challenge.
• Edlund’s definition: mythos is a "story that nearly everyone in a community knows that serves as a reference point for community values and behavior."
• Universality and cultural comfort: every culture has a mythos; even if we don’t believe in literal myths (e.g., twelve Olympian gods), there are ideas and beliefs taken for granted, such as the American Dream. This idea can be powerful but is not inherently good.
• Distinction from Aristotle’s appeals: mythos is a starting point, not a component of a persuasive argument the same way Aristotle’s appeals are. In sophistic rhetoric, the first step is to identify a mythos that is wrong and challenge it using logos and nomos.

Logos

• Aristotle’s framework: logos is rational discourse or argument; ethos = credibility/character; pathos = emotion.
• Sophistic twist: logos in sophistic rhetoric includes more than rational argument—it encompasses all kinds of persuasion that can be conveyed through language, not limited to logic.
• Edlund’s expansion: sophistic logos includes logic, but also stories, images, poetic language, incantations, and other forms of persuasion.
• Purpose of logos in this framework: to challenge mythos by showing that what is treated as true may not be true; to use narrative, evidence, and reasoning to destabilize accepted myths.
• Relationship to mythos: logos is the tool used to unsettle and critique the narratives that hold a culture together, enabling a reconsideration of accepted assumptions.

Nomos

• Definition (Sharma): nomos’ original literal meaning related to land appropriation, but it came to mean a social norm or custom—what a culture does naturally and accepts as normal.
• Interdependence with mythos: mythos (the beliefs and narratives) shape nomos (the norms and practices); nomos is determined by mythos.
• Purpose of nomos in sophistic rhetoric: to change social norms by addressing underlying assumptions that enable those norms.
• Mechanism: use logos to reveal the errors in the myths and narratives, thereby altering the norms that follow from them.
• Summary principle: We use logos to challenge mythos and change nomos.

Example: Obama’s December 6, 2016 counterterrorism speech at MacDill Air Force Base

• Context and audience: The speech is directed at American culture, but specifically at a military culture (Air Force personnel) in a base setting. Analyzing mythos and nomos requires identifying the culture being addressed.
• Mythos being challenged: the idea that America’s job is to “build nations” and police the world. The candidate mythos is evident in the belief that the U.S. should be the world’s policeman.
  • The passage identifies the President with the audience’s values (e.g., “the strongest fighting force the world has ever known”) but then challenges that view: it is unwise and unsustainable to ask the military to build nations or resolve internal conflicts, especially where U.S. forces could attract terrorist attention.
• Nomos being reshaped: shifting responsibility from unilateral American action to multilateral engagement and strengthened local partnerships. The President argues for sharing the burden and developing lasting security through allies and partners rather than sole U.S. leadership.
  • Quoted pivot: "Even as we focus relentlessly on dismantling terrorist networks like al Qaeda and ISIL, we should ask allies to do their share in the fight, and we should strengthen local partners who can provide lasting security."
• Logos in practice: the President emphasizes concrete outcomes to support his critique of mythos. A key line: after outlining progress against ISIL, he claims the campaign has been relentless, sustainable, and multilateral, shifting from a model of direct U.S. ground intervention to building a network of partners.
  • Quote illustrating logos: "So the campaign against ISIL has been relentless. It has been sustainable. It has been multilateral. And it demonstrates a shift in how we've taken the fight to terrorists everywhere … Instead of pushing all of the burden onto American ground troops, instead of trying to mount invasions wherever terrorists appear, we've built a network of partners."
• How the example maps onto the framework:
  • Mythos targeted: the belief in American unilateral policing and nation-building abroad.
  • Logos used to challenge mythos: presentation of multilateral, partner-based success as a functional alternative.
  • Nomos changed: policy emphasis shifts toward multilateral engagement and shared responsibility rather than unilateral force projection.
• Analytical takeaway: The speech demonstrates how mythos can be critiqued by logos (evidence of effectiveness and a better model) and how nomos can be redefined toward new norms (multilateralism and ally partnerships).

Methodological takeaway: Analyzing rhetoric through mythos, logos, nomos

• Step-by-step conceptual workflow:
  • Identify mythos: locate the culture’s widely accepted assumptions or stories that frame behavior and policy.
  • Deploy logos to challenge it: use reasoning, evidence, narratives, and alternative ideas to reveal the flaws or incompleteness in the mythos.
  • Observe nomos shift: note changes in social norms and practices that follow from the revised understanding.
• Key insights:
  • Mythos is a starting point, not a goal in itself.
  • Logos encompasses a broad palette of persuasive techniques, including non-logical elements like stories and imagery.
  • Nomos represents actual practices and norms that social actors enact; changing nomos requires altering underlying mythos, often via logos.

Connections and implications

• Theoretical connections:
  • Builds on Sophist rhetoric and contrasts with Aristotelian triad (ethos, pathos, logos).
  • Emphasizes how authority and tradition can be both influential and contestable in public discourse.
• Practical implications:
  • When tasked with persuasion in real-world settings (policy, politics, leadership), identify the prevailing mythos before arguing for changes.
  • Use a combination of logos (evidence and reasoning) and ethical consideration of the audience (ethos) to reframe norms (nomos).
• Ethical and philosophical considerations:
  • Challenging core cultural narratives can be ethically fraught; the goal should be thoughtful, evidence-based reshaping of norms rather than manipulation.
  • Recognize the potential tension between national interests and universal values when reconfiguring nomos.

Video resources

• Former Mayor Jim Gray on the Rhetorical Force of Words
  • Link: https://vimeo.com/103941623
• Mayor Jim Gray on Using Pathos and Emotional Persuasion to Change Perceptions of Place
  • Link: https://vimeo.com/103941621
• PyllshoterKevin Patterson on the Everyday Importance of Rhetoric
  • Link: https://vimeo.com/103940588
• Kevin Patterson on the Importance of Storytelling and Perception
  • Link: https://vimeo.com/103939686

Notes on terminology and framing

• Mythos, Logos, Nomos are treated as interlocking concepts:
  • Mythos provides the cultural content and assumptions.
  • Logos offers the argumentative means to test and potentially overturn those assumptions.
  • Nomos represents the social norms and practices that result from accepted mythos; it is the arena for change.
• The overarching aim of sophistic rhetoric in this framework is not merely to persuade, but to provoke critical examination of what a culture takes for granted and to enable the adoption of revised norms through reasoned argument.