Affiliation:
1. University of Bath, UK
2. University of Melbourne, Australia
3. University of Sydney, Australia
Abstract
This paper analyses how a case for institutional change is made through rhetoric in an individual text. Drawing on Aristotle’s three types of rhetorical justification, logos, pathos and ethos, we make three contributions. First, we show that the multiple competing logics which often dominate a field can become incorporated into key texts. As a result, the notionally rational argumentation repertoires which underpin each logic exist in tension, and are prone to contradict each other, making it difficult for a text to support convincingly one logic rather than another on the basis of logos appeals. In such instances, the authors of a text may favour one logic over another through the strategic use of ethos (moralizing) and pathos (emotion-evoking) rhetoric. Second, we demonstrate how ethos and pathos function to construct social categories (identities) and draw on dominant cultural myths. Third, we theorize these textual strategies as acts aimed at reconfiguring relations of power/knowledge.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management
Reference122 articles.
1. Safety in Numbers: Downsizing and the Deinstitutionalization of Permanent Employment in Japan
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). Younger people with disability in residential aged care update from the 2009–10 Minimum Data Set, September 2011, Commonwealth of Australia.
Cited by
123 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献