Chapter 2 Claims Norton Media Library Joel Best. Social Problems Copyright © 2008 W.W. Norton &...

Chapter 2

Chapter 2

Claims

Norton Media Library

Joel Best

Social Problems Copyright © 2008 W.W. Norton & Company

Rhetoric of claims

Many claims tend to use a standard format with three components Grounds Warrants Conclusions


Rhetoric of claims

Grounds: Descriptions of the troubling condition Basic rhetorical recipe

Typifying examples/atrocity stories which shapes public’s perception of what the condition is like; notice however that these stories do not reflect “typical” cases

The problem is named and given an orientation (e.g., medical condition, scientific trouble, etc.)

Statistic(s) offered that implies how severe the troubling condition actually is Big numbers preferred because they suggest that condition is

widespread and thus serious enough for others to pay attention


Rhetoric of claims

Other types of grounds Claims that problem is getting progressively worse Construct profiles of both victims and villains Range claim: many different kinds of people are hurt by

the troubling condition Challenges to other ways of constructing the social

problem


Rhetoric of claims

Warrants: why we should be concerned about the troubling condition; focuses on why “ought to care” Utilize values (standards of good and bad, right

and wrong that a majority of people share) Since different people hold to different values,

best to use multiple warrants in order to cover as many possible reasons why people should care as possible


Rhetoric of claims

Conclusions: what should be done about the social problem; the solution Proposed solution must be in line with the

grounds and warrants put forth by the claimsmaker

Might offer both short-term and long-term goals (policy changes)


Claims and Audiences

Claimsmakers must try to create claims that others will find persuasive Valence issues:

topics that nearly everyone will agree are significant social problems; easier for claimsmakers to make certain kinds of claims about these social problems

Position issues: topics over which it is unlikely that most people will ever

come to consensus; more difficult for claimsmakers to persuade most individuals, so often target those who think like themselves



Audiences are differentiated or segmented Different social demographics often creates smaller

audiences which worry about only certain kinds of social problems the most

These segmented audiences may have different interests and ideologies

Tactics for claimsmaking to various kinds of segmented audiences “Preach to the choir: make claims only to those who think as

your group does Seek out the widest possible audience, for claim, often using

multiple grounds and warrants to accomplish this claimsmaking goal



Audiences are not passive but active; they might seek out some claims; reject others; and pick and choose what makes most sense to them. Successful claimsmakers are aware of this and pay attention to how the audience is responding to their claims



Social problems marketplace At any given time, there are numerous claims about a

variety of social problems being made and which are bombarding the audience

Claimsmakers struggle to get the audience’s attention and keep refining their claimsmaking in an effort to be more successful

Even if their issue has been come well-established as a social problem, claimsmakers need to keep refining their claims so that the problem does not become stale and cause it to lose attention by policymakers and the general public



How do claimsmakers refine claims to keep audience attention? Domain expansion: redefine/broaden the definition of

the problem, thereby adding in more possible victims to help and villains to control

Piggyback: when a newer claim builds upon an older, more established social problem’s claimsmaking, saying that “it is just like X” where “X” is the more established problem



Most claimsmaking campaigns that are not about valence issues will inspire counterclaims Often involve disputes over grounds or warrants

“Stat wars” over which statistics are more reflective of the “true” situation

Debates over ideologies (usually linked to warrants) Usually both sides nuance and modify claims as a

response to counterclaims by the other side(s)


Cultural resources

While it is possible to create claims however claimsmakers want to, in practical reality, claims need to make sense to the intended audiences and to the claimsmakers themselves

Thus claimsmaking requires that claimsmakers be attuned to the cultural context where the claims are being made


Cultural resources

So claimsmakers must tap into cultural resources – the well of words, ideas, and images that most people (of that culture) see as reasonable Any one culture contains a large number of words, ideas,

and images to choose from It is also not necessarily internally consistent and cohesive,

which allows claimsmakers about the same social problems to construct it in a variety of ways

Culture is constantly changing, so claimsmakers need to be aware of any shifts in meaning, etc.


Cultural resources

Cultural resources both limit and enrich claimsmaking process Constrains claimsmakers by making them ground

their claims in what others are likely to see as practical and reasonable

But within the realm of the reasonable, claimsmakers will have a broad range of words, images, and ideas from which to select


Case study: Claims about gay marriage

End Chapter 2

This concludes the Norton Media LibrarySlide Set for Chapter 2

W. W. Norton & CompanyIndependent and Employee-Owned

Social Problems

ByJoel Best

Chapter 2 Claims Norton Media Library Joel Best. Social Problems Copyright © 2008 W.W. Norton &...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 2 Claims Norton Media Library Joel Best. Social Problems Copyright © 2008 W.W. Norton &...