Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure Original On Schedule
So I have already written this rhetorical analysis but I used some AI. I was wondering if you could sort of edit, proofread, rewrite so it sounds original and follows all the guidelines. Essay is attached.
It is a rhetorical analysis on a contemporary figure that we choose to analyze whether they are a demagogue or not based on Patricia Robert-Miller’s framework from the material I will upload if you would like to look over it to strengthen the essay, maybe add better quotes from the speaker we chose and add betters quotes and maybe some citations to strengthen the essay.
The speaker I chose was Jair Bolsonaro.
Here are the Overall details:
Academic Writing Project — Lens Assignment on The Rhetoric of Demagoguery
Assignment Requirements
This essay must be formatted to MLA specifications and it must reach a page minimum of seven full (completely full) pages.
The introduction must introduce the target speaker, the concept of demagoguery and, finally, the lens. It must also offer thorough context to the extent that a reader unfamiliar with any of the above can still understand the stakes involved in your investigation (is speech made dangerous, are civil liberties eroded, is the rule of law extinguished, is there a potential loss of democracy, is the outgroup punished or eliminated?). The meta discourse must be present and clear.
The essay must include four body paragraphs, and each paragraph will apply one of Roberts-Miller’s characteristics of demagoguery to your chosen speaker’s language. These characteristics must not be redundant.
A paragraph devoted to the analysis of your findings must come to a clear determination on whether-or-not your chosen speaker is, in fact, a demagogue.
The consequences of your determination in analysis must be thoroughly explored in conclusion. Even if you find that, though your speaker may employ demagogic tactics, the speaker is not in your analysis a demagogue, the consequences of using demagogic tactics still has consequences for the informational commons and democracy (it can lead to further polarization and suppression of speech, for example.)
Getting Started
First you will need to begin to understand Patricia Roberts-Miller’s definition of demagoguery. She builds the case for this definition in the article Democracy, Demagoguery and Critical Rhetoric. The definition of demagoguery in this article is the lens for this assignment. Other helpful resources include the required readings from Roberts-Miller’s book Democracy and Demagoguery and Roberts-Miller’s interview with the Open Mind program. All of these resources can be found in the M1 and M2 required reading/view/listening pages.
Second, you will need to chose a speaker to analyze for the use of demagogic language (by applying Patricia Roberts-Miller’s lens: her definition plus a set of demagogic characteristics she describes in her texts). The speaker must be contemporary and express a comprehensive world view in some way: written, verbal, in visual or audio formats, or any of these published across social platforms. Historical figures who are famous for demagoguery will not be considered because students will pose the question: Is this speaker a demagogue? Asking a question with an obvious answer defeats the purpose of this exercise. Lastly, it is best if the chosen speaker already demonstrates a capacity for in-group/out-group thinking. Without this quality, the speaker cannot be seriously considered for espousing demagoguery.
Grading Rubric
Each of the components of this assignment is valued at a full letter grade or the corresponding number of points. For example, a lack of context (introductory material in this instance) will drop a final score by 20 points (the point total for this assignment is 200 points). Partial points may be awarded to various degrees of success. The components are 1). Context (introductory material). Both the target speaker and the lens must be thoroughly introduced. 2). Meta-discourse where the writer tells the reader exactly what they will do. 2). Evaluation (body paragraphs) 3). Analysis (a clear determination must be made) and 4.) Argumentation (an evidence-based discussion on the consequences of your determination in analysis. This must be well-reasoned and thorough.).
Steps to a successful introduction
Provide the following:
1) An interesting and compelling lead into your essay (this might be some scene-setting that reveals the fraught context of your speaker’s speech, or the high stakes involved).
2) An introduction to your speaker, their speech (when, where, why), and their argument.
3). The context for, and the real or potential consequences of that speech.
4) An introduction to Roberts-Miller, her project, her article, her argument and why it matters.
5) Meta-discourse, or how you will proceed.
Body Paragraphs:
1) State a major claim posed by your target speaker
2) Explain that claim and give it context
3) Offer a quote from your speaker that displays and expands this claim
4) Deepen that quote, claim or idea by delivering further context or explanation
5) Identify the demagogic strategy (according to RM) demonstrated in your speaker’s claim/language
6) Explain how this works (through the lens, or explanation by RM) in your speaker’s speech
Analysis paragraph
Compare and contrast the extent to which your speaker’s language fits the rhetorical strategies you described in your body paragraphs (a little, or a lot). Does the speaker employ Roberts-Miller’s strategies, and how much? Then posit Roberts-Miller’s central premise (which is what?). In the end, even if your speaker uses all of Roberts-Miller’s defined rhetorical strategies of a demagogue, does that speaker fit her central premise? And is that speaker, in your opinion, a demagogue.
Steps
A) Restate the purpose of your query and how you went about conducting it.
B) Comment on the extent to which your speaker’s language fits the rhetorical strategies described in your body paragraphs (a little, or a lot). Does the speaker employ Roberts-Miller’s strategies, and how much? You might give an example. Or maybe there are characteristics your speaker employs that didn’t make it into your body paragraphs. Thinking through these might bolster your final determination.
C) But there is more! Roberts-Miller’s definition is comprised of strategies, core characteristics and a central premise. Reason through three of the “core characteristic” questions below, giving examples, and then answer the central premise.
D) Finally, use this information to make a reasoned determination on whether or not your speaker is, in fact, a demagogue.
Core Characteristic questions:
1) Does the speaker promote fear?
2) Is the debate boiled down to us vs. them?
3) Is dissent treated as treason?
4) Is deliberation demonized?
5) I relation to power, what is the speaker’s intent?
6) Is the speech happening in a time of expulsion and group oppression?
7) Are concerns such as due process and human rights luxuries we can’t afford?
8) Finally, does the speaker insight the ingroup to hate and scapegoat the outgroup?
Conclusion
For your conclusion, please craft a well-reasoned discussion of the consequences of your determination in analysis. Demagogic speech holds consequences for individuals, groups, and classes of people; for free discourse, civic trust, the rule of law, and mutual cooperation. We know that successful and unrestrained demagogic speech may bring the downfall of the democracy that gave rise to it; and that it can lead to civil strife, violence and genocide. But demagogic speech conducted by speakers who are not, in the end, demagogues (or maybe, even, demagogues who don’t attain a high level of power), also has consequences. It may allow denial of responsibility and foster polarization, for example. Early demagogues may set the stage for later, more powerful ones. So, there may be nuanced and far-reaching consequences that take time and reflection to fully understand. If your speaker’s story has played out, the consequences should be available for you to consider. If you speaker’s story is still unfolding, you will have to forecast the consequences based on the evidence you have and what history (and Roberts-Miller) has shown to be the outcome of demagoguery. By comparing your speaker’s speech to historical (and in some cases, contemporary) examples, you may tease out the possibilities.
Here is the youtube video that is part of the required reading/viewing:
The Open Mind with Patricia Roberts Miller (First ten minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TjqM9AeaMA&t=1s
i HAVE ATTACHED ALL THE READINGS AS FILES IF NEEDED.
Also, I felt like the 4th Body paragraph before the analysis is lacking in terms of the guidelines.
Please read Professor samples/suggestions file.
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Secure Original On Schedule