110 pages • 3 hours read
Jay HeinrichsThank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2007A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaThemes
Persuasion Is Not About the Persuader
Throughout Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs reiterates that “persuasion doesn’t depend on being true to yourself. It depends on being true to your audience” (53). Persuasion is not about the persuader—rather, it is about the beliefs and expectations of their audience. Decorum is a source of rhetorical strength as it builds group identity, “a resource that rhetoric loves to exploit” (54). Decorum is especially important in politics. Senator Bob Packwood, a Republican politician and lawyer from Oregon, once championed women’s rights legislation. People considered him a feminist—until they found out he was sexually harassing women. Packwood’s lack of decorum demonstrated how he truly felt about women; his horrific abuse of power made him unpersuasive. Because persuasion is power in politics, he eventually resigned.
Group identity is key to persuasion. When values differ, another group’s behavior might seem strange or wrong; what is ethical to a persuader could hurt their ethos in an audience’s eyes. One literary example is Atticus Finch, the southern lawyer from To Kill a Mockingbird. Most readers consider him virtuous, as he defends Tom Robinson, a Black man wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a white woman. Despite fighting for justice, Atticus’s fellow townspeople ridicule and lose respect for him; they cannot understand why he would defend Tom. Despite combating racial injustice, something far greater than he, Atticus’s values differ from his audience (his fellow townspeople, who end up convicting Tom despite Atticus proving his innocence). Because Atticus stuck to his own values and not those of the townspeople, he was unable to convince them of his preferred action (acquitting Tom).
Since persuasion is not about the persuader, the persuader should not discuss their motives, needs, or wants—rather, they need to find those of their audience (potential hooks). The persuader then needs to attach their preferred choice to said hooks. Having a hook is important for politicians, salespeople, and even college admissions officers. College admissions officers look for students who can contribute in some way—thus, prospective students need to determine a hook worthy of acceptance.
Rhetoric Is Morally Ambiguous
Rhetoric is neither good nor bad—it is both. It comes down to how individuals use the tools of persuasion. One of the most persuasive politicians in US history is President Abraham Lincoln, who mastered how to use rhetoric’s moral ambiguity to further his goal of ending slavery. To achieve this goal, he needed to win over people who were pro-slavery. Lincoln did this by talking like his audience, which included making racist jokes. Heinrichs notes “whether Lincoln actually was a racist or not doesn’t matter rhetorically; his outward attitude was an effective ethos gambit” (59). Lincoln’s racist jokes made him more persuasive to his audience, even though most individuals today would find the jokes morally reprehensible.
Rhetorical patriotism further supports rhetoric’s moral ambiguity. This argument tool rouses an “audience’s group feelings by showing a rival group’s success, or by disrespecting its territory or symbol” (90). Patriotism is all about love for one’s group. If an agent wants to persuade an audience, they should talk about what they have in common—then switch to talking about an enemy, common or otherwise. Politicians are notorious for using rhetorical patriotism. They often cultivate camaraderie and then start talking about those outside their group. Here, rhetorical patriotism is both good and bad. It is good for building and maintaining group identity, but it exacerbates tribalism by pitting groups against one another.
Tropes can be especially “black-magicky” (252). Many of the worst derogatory terms to exist are tropes. These terms use individual characteristics to define entire groups. Persuaders can create their own tropes, which is where much of their danger lies:
When you zoom your audience’s mental camera in, then make your audience think just of that one person or piece of clothing or part of the body or skin color or action, you do more than show how clever or poetic you are. You potentially color the audience’s entire attitude (256).
For example, a person and their friends could see a group of women wearing floppy pink hats at the mall and forever call them “hats.” None of them consider how one of these women could be someone of importance; they are simply “hats.” “Hats” masks all that they are and could be. There is both power and potential for evil in tropes.
Although Heinrichs presents numerous scenarios that support the moral ambiguity of persuasion, he more so believes in its power for good than its power for evil. He presents so many situations in which rhetoric was used for evil to show the reader how to spot them. In doing so, Heinrichs provides readers with the tools to ensure that rhetoric remains more good than bad.
Argument Is in Human Nature
Heinrichs opens Thank You for Arguing with the central tenet that argument is part of human nature. In Chapter 1, he was attempting to go a day without persuasion when he had an argument with his son. His experiment failed. Rhetoric filled his day, including when he convinced George to grab him a new toothpaste tube and eat dinner at school so he could work late and not cook, emailed editors with flattering explanations for missing their deadlines, and used grooming and clothing to convince his wife that “she did not marry a bum” (11).
The book boasts over 100 argument tools. Heinrichs does not expect readers to memorize them all—rather, he hopes some tools help the reader develop a “rhetorical habit of mind, seeing the argument in human nature (and in nature itself) all around you” (147). To further illustrate how argument connects to human nature, Heinrichs provides examples grounded in business and politics.
For businesses, the tools of argumentation help them sell items—like The South Beach Diet? The Delicious, Doctor-Designed, Foolproof Plan for Fast and Healthy Weight Loss. The use of “South Beach” helps audiences picture themselves in bathing suits, as enjoying summer activities is one of the reasons most people diet. The rest of the book’s title makes it seem like the diet is easy to follow. The combination of these two arguments resulted in the book selling numerous copies. Salespeople use disinterest to convince clients that their solution will meet their needs. Individuals can also sell themselves using argument tools in the hopes of getting promotions or other personal victories.
Persuasion is political power; therefore, politicians do everything they can to keep it. Although Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump use rhetoric differently, both bring “the house down” (324) with their supporters. Politicians use tactics like red herrings to switch to topics that are easier to argue during interviews and debates; they also speak in the past tense to avoid placing blame. Today’s polarized climate is largely due to politicians fueling a tribal mindset.
The universality of argument is one of the reasons why Heinrichs wrote his book. He hopes that by teaching readers rhetoric, they will be able to spot manipulation and become master persuaders themselves. He also sees rhetoric as one of the most beautiful parts of humanity. Heinrichs hopes that restoring its use in everyday life will result in a stronger democracy.
