welcome we're continuing our conversation about rhetorical methods looking at the new rhetoric this is the third installment on the new rhetoric and the final installment what we're looking at um today is the issue of audience audience is the key concept in the new rhetoric this is the linchpin this is the thing that another metaphor this is the thing that stitches it all together so the ideas that we've encountered so far they will um they'll they'll snap in place if if we can get the idea of audience down clearly in our mind now you will remember that um just like toolman pearlman had started on a search for justice he wanted to find a pragmatic a a practical way of approaching everyday decisions because people were making decisions all the time and those decisions as of course he had seen work um sometimes horribly filled with moral consequences and so both toolman and perlman in both methods they come out of this attempt to try and reconnect the idea of human reasoning and human rationality to those those value judgments which are made every day by people in all circumstances of life both you know the morality of war and and just you know whether or not you're going to cut somebody off in the in the in the inline in the coffee shop right i mean it's the whole scope of everyday human experiences that's what they are interested in for um perlman especially that is very directly focused on the concept of justice he is looking for a way to tie human reason to a viable discourse about justice that doesn't leave us trapped in a world of just private opinion and made up sub made up definitions out of our own little group right because he had seen that that's that ends up really badly most of the time all right so he he's that's where he's going he's looking for that idea of justice and he he does this by redeveloping that concept of adherence adherence that's rooted in the idea of conviction he wants he wants to focus on that adherence is his idea his his terminology for this idea that you have embraced a certain thing as a conviction meaning you've given adherence to it you know you can't absolutely prove it but boy you got some backing here to to help you along and um that that will allow you to embrace this idea so that's where he starts but the central idea that's gonna hold all this together and that is going to in fact um open it up for us will be the idea of audience so we're turning our attention to audience and we have to begin with two basic ideas of audience that we're gonna find in the new rhetoric um they are the same and they are different okay and you have to keep them both thought of as a single unit and you have to be able to deal with the two ideas of audience separately so it gets a little tricky but um it's not it's not that bad you'll you'll get you'll get you know you'll get a sense of how to do it he names these two um audiences and he and we can talk about them sort of different things even though they they share a lot of space he he names these two things the universal audience and the particular audience now the universal audience the particular audience very briefly um the universal audience is a set he calls it the ensemble of everybody who is willing and able to discuss the matter at hand so essentially it's a it's you know a group of all sane rational reasonable human beings the particular audience is different the particular audience is the set of those people that this particular wretter is attempting to influence with this particular artifact that you're looking at as a critic right so the writer is giving a speech or they designed a commercial or they they built a building or they um you know painted a picture they they did something that produced that was designed to produce adherence to encourage conviction in a group of people and that particular artifact was targeting somebody that's the particular audience so the particular audience is the set of those that the writer's trying to influence if you will i mean not it's not all you know persuasion but but um to strengthen or to create new um new convictions uh the per the the group that's being targeted basically is the particular audience so when we talk about the set of the universal audience we're talking about everybody who as we said is willing and able to discuss this that's a big set okay that's that's the group of all the human beings on the planet who are you know reasonable who are connected to reality who can think clearly who can who can stitch a couple ideas together and and make sense out of the world this is this is the vast majority of human beings right so people are members of the universal audience because they can think clearly because they're connected to reality because they see um and respond to the world around them in in a proper and appropriate way if my beloved is headed out the door right and i call after her and i say hey don't forget to get a gallon of milk on your way home my beloved does not turn to me and say well parakeets can't smoke cigars why why doesn't she turn to me and say something like that why because she's a member of the universal audience she thinks clearly she can make connections she's not she's not severed from reality she understands discourse and the possibility of discourse that's the universal audience it's the ensemble of everybody who is able and who's willing both of those are you know you gotta have both um able and willing to engage in reasonable discourse um about the matter at hand okay now that's different from the particular the particular is a group of people that that are being targeted by the rhetor in this specific moment now the writer is therefore sort of picking a particular audience out of the universal audience okay so the universal audience is out there and the the the writer is choosing members of the particular audience from that universal group now we're going to walk that back in just a minute okay but that's kind of the place to start thinking what makes a particular audience a particular audience well they they share some view some characteristics some quality usually rooted in some kind of value or belief system that's that's usually what makes up the particular audience okay now don't get the idea that somehow the universal audience is good and the particular audience is bad that's not what we're doing at all and it's it's not at all what what perlman is trying to construct so that's not the kind of judgment or interpretation or analysis that we're looking for so it's not like one of them's good and one of them is bad it's they're they're both out there and they both function the particular audience um is is linked because they have a shared set of views or beliefs so um you know when a when a sports figure is talking to fans of their own team right that's a particular audience that's a group that you can bet share certain characteristics qualities beliefs hopes desires values okay that's the kind of that's the kind of thing that constitutes a particular audience when a you know when a uh when um a a religious uh authority you know a priest or an imam or a rabbi they stand up and they they they speak to the people who share their faith in a religious service that's a particular audience when a when a um a politician stands up and talks not to the the country at large or to everybody in their their state but to their own party that's a particular audience now if they turn their attention from the particular audience of my party and they begin to talk to everybody who's in my congressional district that's another particular audience okay so it's not like particular audiences are bad they're they're you know no no wretter ever addresses only the universal audience readers are constantly addressing particular audiences that's where the nuts and bolts are that's where the particular the specific the you know rubber meets the road kind of discourse goes on and we we're not trying to to suggest that's a problem in fact perlman says over and over again that's exactly proper it's exactly right that you should speak to a particular audience over and over again however there are a couple of things that we want to call our attention to here um what this means this thought about the particular audience it means that that particular audience has been chosen they've been picked they've been in a way constructed inside the mind of the rhetor so the writer is actually choosing the particular audience the writer has decided who he or she wants to address okay the writer is addressing a particular audience a particular audience is particular it's a specific group because they share some value or belief that binds them together so now think back to our lesson on adherence remember in adherence you got to start with something the audience already agrees with embraces has given adherence to that's where you start so it may be that that particular audience tells you from the beginning who the wretter is or what the wretter is planning to use to make their case um it may be that the writer is is planning to appeal to that very defining characteristic in order to move this audience along because of course as we remember from adherence only by beginning with what with an already accepted conviction can you create new conviction all right but since that conviction is shared and since the um the rhetor built that conviction that reader built that audience that's going to be really valuable and important to us okay the retter built the audience now here's the thing though and this is where it gets a little bit tricky and i said we're going to walk back some of this in just a second well here here we're walking backwards what we just said about the particular audience it's constructed in in the wretter's mind and i mean constructed as in built out of nothing but i mean it's assembled it's put together out of what the writer expects to be able to accomplish in in this setting and what the the rhetoric expects is going to happen out there okay while it is true that the particular audience is constructed in the writer's mind it is equally true that the universal audience is constructed in the wretter's mind okay hold on i thought the universal audience was everybody who could be reasonable about the matter we're talking about yup that's exactly right but every wretter has their own idea of what is going to count as reasonable in this discussion and they don't always line up now it's fair to say enormous overlap yeah yeah enormous overlap but not identical my idea of the group of people who are reasonable and are going to be able to talk about this won't match your idea so if we're talking about um you know the best uh the best linebacker in the nfl okay the group of people who can have that conversation in my mind might be different from the group of people who could have that conversation in your mind if we're talking about anything we might have different ideas about people who are able and willing to discuss it now where do we get those ideas we get those ideas because we have these piecemeal bits and and sharp angles of experience that fall across our lives in different times and in different ways and that lead us to start drawing perimeters around you know who counts as a reasonable person and who isn't a reasonable person who isn't to be trusted who can't really put it all together the way they should and so i'm building through my own experiences these sharp edges of my own experiences i'm building an imperfect let's all be very clear here our view of the of the universal audience it is very uniquely ours but it is always imperfect the universal audience like the particular audience is being crafted in the mind of the rhetor that's intriguing and it also tells us something since the wretter is building the universal audience and they're choosing members of the particular audience it means some members of that particular audience are probably going to fall outside the border of the universal audience in other words every writer is going to be addressing a particular audience where they think there are people in this group that won't be able to get it won't be able to follow won't be able to do this or or don't or aren't willing right who don't want to who who are going to try to undermine this message so a writer is facing a particular audience where some members are in the universal audience and other members may not be so we've got two audiences now okay and both of those audiences the particular and the universal audience they're both reflections of the rhetor's understanding of this moment who's reasonable and who i'm addressing all right now that means if we could get a way to assess the writer's view of the audiences their universal and their particular audience if we could learn that then we would learn a great great deal about how this message is being crafted by this wretter to work what does this reader think will work what does this reader think will not work that's the issue and that's where we as critics will begin to make some use of this idea of the audience all right so with these distinctions in mind the universal and the the particular audience um with that in mind we're ready to start looking at the critic's job which is um to make some to to try and give some solid answers to some basic questions so as a beginning critic using this method you can ask three questions that are going to help you understand and interpret the artifact question one what is it that this rhetor um is is view how does this writer view the universal audience what does it look like and is it healthy okay um what does the writer think the universal audience is that's the baseline now let's look at that um how do you figure that out what what tells you what the writer's idea of the universal audience is what tells you what the the writer's universal audience looks like okay that's where we're going to step back to the world of adherence because when we look at the way the writer is crafting adherence that tells us about the universal audience the new redick's very clear we divided this idea of adherence into the real and the preferable remember that discussion all right last time we talked about that okay here is where we're going to bring that forward into the present discussion the real facts truth presumptions those things they are the kinds of appeals that are made to the universal audience not the particular audience okay now that i mean they can be used in a particular setting they can be used with a particular audience but they hint at they show us what the they show us critics what the writer is thinking of in terms of the universal audience so we we pay really special attention to the use of the real the facts the truths the presumptions because those show the writers idea of the universal audience we ask for example what does this writer consider facts to be where does this writer think facts come from what are the rules for challenging facts does does the writer think that facts are rooted in feelings that's a very strange and dangerous place if we're gonna start there if you think facts are rooted in the way i feel okay that's gonna raise some questions right where do the redder where does the writer get their definition that's going to define facts okay so those are the kinds of things we begin to look at when a writer forwards something that they are handling as a fact now go back to adherence check your definition of facts and adherence when a writer forwards something as an appeal that appears to be a fact you as a critic need to look really carefully at that and ask some of those tough questions about it all right um what about truths remember truths are systems that make sense out of all the facts we get we get a million facts out here we have to connect them and see how they're related to each other right okay so that's what truth means to to perlman not not truth with a capital t but truth are systems through which we understand how um the realities around us are related okay so how does the writer think you make sense out of the facts what what is their their system of inter of understanding what systems of understanding do they say you're supposed to apply to facts in order to make sense out of them that's the kind of question we raise and ask as we look at the appeals the writer is making we we comb through the appeals the writer makes the reasons they give for um shifting your adherence over to a new idea we look at those and we focus on what they say is true you know what do they say the facts are how do they say the systems are related and presumptions okay um what does the writer presume about the world what what is in the duh category what what do they they say that is a throwaway that's just obvious you know that they obviously think nobody could disagree with that that's just well okay what's there what's in that category that tells you who the the writer has put into their definition of the universal audience now you got to be careful here so go go back look at look at the the discussion about adherence bring that information here to to understand what's going on here but the thing that i would tell you to be careful about is this the the critic is not at this point um out fishing for some kind of a takedown okay you're not um uh you're not looking at what the writer says are the truths in order to point out how stupid the rhetoric is okay so for example um you you have to you have to as a critic you have to grapple with these facts truths and presumptions in a way that you can present them fairly and and um as clearly and correctly as you can you want to present them in a way that the rhetor would look at that and say yeah that's that's exactly what i believe okay that's that's exactly how i see the world that's your goal you're not looking to start a fight this isn't what you're doing in this critical step um think of think of for example a um an atheist who who is looking at the facts that are present and when they get to this idea of okay how is this writer saying that that the particular audience should uh make sense out of this because that's going to tell me who they think the universal audience is right what is the system that they're appealing to here oh it's um it's uh it's religious well as an atheist i don't believe there is any religion so clearly this is a failed uh message this is a stupid rhetor that no you don't that's not that's not what you get to do and of course you can invert it a religious person doesn't get to look at a a presentation say well you didn't bring god in so clearly this isn't worth listening to that's not the goal the question here is as a critic you're looking to see does the writer present truth a system for understanding and interpreting the world to their audience did they present that to the audience in a way that opens up the possibility for discourse okay does a writer have a system that can allow us to continue to exchange ideas even when we recognize we disagree because obviously we're going to disagree that i mean the the universal audience hold in mind universal the universal audience in no way assumes there is universal agreement it assumes a universal willingness and ability to talk about our de agree our agreements and our disagreements okay and to sort of carry on discourse about those that's the goal so that's what you're looking for does the rhetor deal with their truths their systems for understanding the world in a way that is still open and would allow other people to step in even when they disagree step in and have a discourse or do they deal with their truth in a way that sort of narrows that okay that's the kind of question we're up against so question number one what does the writer think the universal audience looks like um not surprisingly when we move on then to question number two question number two is pretty clear uh who's the particular audience in this case in this case who is the audit who's the the who has the writer specifically chosen who have they placed into their mind as the the people that this particular message is targeting okay how do you find that about oh you do exactly the same thing you go to the the appeals that we talked about you you look at what the calls for adherence are and here we pay special attention to appeals to preference the common ground appeals that make up particular audiences values hierarchies and loci that's where we go it and we do exactly the same thing um what kind of values are being tapped into what are the priorities of those values what's put ahead of what that tells you who the specific audience is that is supposed to be here so what is a particular audience in this case well that that's the the audience that is going to be tied into those values those priorities and so forth so um we ask that what values are appealed to how are those values prioritized what kind of maxims are or uh presumed moral or ethical or social spaces are present in the message you know um that's the question the the particular audience is hidden in there and the critic needs to listen to watch carefully for the kinds of appeals that appear and to fear it out whether or not there are adherences being invited through through preference or through real and the you know reality of your preference and they'll be both the the answer is they're going to be both but they're going to tell you about different ideas of audience that the that the retter is carrying in their head um those kinds of of invitations to adherents that that rest in reality they tell you about the universal audience um the kinds of of invitations to adherents that rest in preference they tell you about the particular audience so you need to know both of those because when we get to question three not surprisingly we move pretty quickly and directly into this idea of all right how does the writer see the relationship between the universal and the particular audience what is the relationship that is present in this writer's mind and this this is the pay dirt okay it's this idea of relationship that is going to tell us the most and this is what we as critics are going to get more of than anything else so we've seen these two audiences both of them are reflections of the rhetors understanding now we want to see how the writer moves back and forth between them want to see how how the writer is is thinking these two groups are related what is he or she the writer what does he or she encourage that relationship to be that's the question now to think about this we're going to go back to our universal and particular audience let's change our view just a bit here okay because we can see this maybe with a bit of a venn diagram a little bit more specifically so if we think about the universal in the particular audience in this way um we will begin to see them in relationship to each other in terms of overlap and motion all right another perspective that we can take here as we begin to talk about the universal particular audience remember we can ask this too how are the appeals to preference which tell us about the particular audience related to the appeals to the real which tell us about the universal audience okay so that's that's the question how are these are related and it's not a simple answer like you know they're more of one kind than the other it's not that simple we want to see how they're related in a way in this message that pulls the audience in one direction or another the particular audience in one direction or another we know that in the universal audience you're dealing with facts truths and presumptions we know that in the particular audience you're looking at values hierarchies and loci okay we got that now we want to see the way the writer has built those kinds of appeals which way is that tugging the particular audience now before we do that there's one little thing we want to look at here remember we said there are there are always some members of the the particular audience that are just a little outside the uh the scope of the universal audience well some really are some of them are are so far you know they they have edged they've broken the boundary or at least cracked it seriously and they're in a space where they really are not willing or they're not able to have a genuine exchange of ideas they can't do it or they they won't do it those people we call fanatics or sometimes we refer to them as skeptics depending on the situation we're going to be back to that concept of the fanatical and the skeptic the new rhetoric is going to give us a way to think about those and a way to understand those and at one level reply to them but we're going to get there in a minute first we got to go back to this relationship between the universal and the particular audience so um how's the writer handling encouraging the relationship what does that what does the wretter seem to endorse as the proper relationship between those two audiences that's what you the critic are trying to find out if you're using this method what you're after is you're trying to figure out what does the rhetor encourage or endorse as the proper relationship between the particular and the universal audience that's your 64 thousand dollar question okay there are a few things that might creep up so as you begin to look at it you might discover as you compare this and you listen to the kinds of appeals that are present you might discover that um some aspects of this you might find certain messages that are characterized by a tug into the universal audience okay um the the appeals that you watch even when they're addressed in terms of values and priorities to the to the particular audience to identify who they are they're still couched in a way that sort of champions acknowledges shows respect for the universal audience so you have the kinds of appeals that even even when they're occurring in a particular space are tugging the particular audience a little more into the boundaries of the universal audience all right so um look at the the appeals how do you recognize that okay you reckon you know so pragmatically what are you looking for you gather the appeals you look at all those appeals that are present think back to the last lesson we did you look at all the appeals and you look at how they're mixed up and mingled and you ask yourself are these coming together in a way that champions that praises that encourages the acceptance of reality are there argument structures that pull the audience into the status of a universal audience in other words um because of the assumptions they make right the or the argument structures that make certain assumptions that encourage the audience to to the particular audience to move into a status and change their status and be become more robust members of the universal audience that's what you want to point out find those things those appeals that call the particular audience to respect champion accept embrace universal qualities facts truths presumptions those things that's what you're pointing out to make the case that here's a message that is pulling the particular audience into a more universal status on the other hand of course you can see tensions that'll happen in the other direction right the you can see tensions you'll watch and you will you will see a pull that draws the particular audience um out of the universal audience it pulls the audience toward a more particular status okay um again how do you find it same same thing go to the appeals look at how they're mixed and mingled and are they mixed and mingle in a way that champions that praises that encourages the acceptance of the preference above the real point those out okay our values and hierarchies set in contrast to facts and truths and made more important okay that's the kind of appeal that's pulling an audience away from pulling a particular audience away from universal status okay values and hierarchies said in contrast to the universal status that's that's the danger that's one of the things that you are able to point out and when you point it out you're able to make a judgment about it right there's a third place that we can point out where we can say the redder is um is in fact off the deep end okay the redder might be engaged in warning against in denying the sorts of appeals that are rooted in your universal status where you know they're the particular things that define us they matter more than any of that that fact any more than you know that our our system of understanding the world um our hierarchies they're more important than any system that can explain a whole lot more of the world they're the universal audience they're the enemy and in cases like that and we're talking here about extreme cases this is you know this is cult status stuff um in those situations the the writer will be trying to build a wall that severs and separates the particular audience from the universal audience and define the particular audience as the only set of beliefs values facts anything that matters okay so the universal audience is discounted and the particular audience is treated as if it were the only thing that mattered okay so those are your three basic options okay option one the writer assumes that the particular audience is strongly rooted in the universal audience will respond to universal appeals they will expect their own particular views to be coherent to match up with the universal audience even when they're not universally accepted right so the the the view that i have of religion um no question it's not universally accepted but it's coherent and it it's part of the universal conversation we can we're not you know afraid of this or or discounting it my political convictions certainly not accepted by everyone but they're rooted in the facts and the systems that make up and make sense out of the world in a democratic society so that's the kind of thing that you get in in relationship one particular audience rooted in the universal audience relationship two the particular audience is being called away from the universal audience they're being herded it at one level sort of encouraged to step away from universal status appeals in this situation set preference above reality they draw the particular audience out from and away from the universal audience and of course third we see situations where there is a severance and the particular audience is simply broken off from the universal audience and treated as an entirely different reality and the only reality that matters that sort of fanatical vision of the world is um is present in this third example of how particular and universal audiences can be related and that that brings us really to this idea of fanaticism um let's let's think about the fanatical here for a moment because the new rhetoric is very clear about fanaticism um you know you're looking now at a chart that you're quite familiar with i hope by this time you know that there are sort of three aspects of the human intellectual experience there's there's at the top there's just things we know and nobody can disagree with that no no reasonable person can disagree with that it's just knowledge we know that in the middle there are things we believe we hold them to be true we have really good reasons to back them up and um you know those reasons are built out of that entire system of infimatic reflection good reasons to back them up there there are convictions the things we've given adherence to in the new rhetoric terminology and then at the bottom there's just your feelings you know you just you happen i want i like it's just it's just animal level grunts and points that's all you got at the bottom right we've said that at the bottom nobody cares about those those things unless they're you know that you have some kind of deep relationship with them right um you don't care whether you know you couldn't care less what my thoughts are about brussels sprouts okay but my beloved she she cares okay well that's nice and it's great but but my my feelings about brussels sprouts have absolutely no impact on your life whatsoever and that is what brings us to fanaticism believe it or not brussels sprouts and my life okay fanaticism is a situation the new rhetoric says where the fanatic is consistently looking at evidence that should lead to one of these three levels i want that i like that well that leads to an understanding of your own feelings i have a set of good reasons that back this up but i can't prove it that leads to belief here is a system of scientific mathematical proof that it's nobody's going to be able to object to if they understand it that leads to knowledge okay the the fanatic is consistently picking up evidence that would lead to one of those levels and they're promoting it so in other words the fanatic treats their private experience their personal feelings as evidence that you should do something they treat their private feelings their reflections their their private experiences they treat that as a reason for someone else that they don't have any real connection to no no real relationship with they treat their private feelings as reasons that strangers should embrace some idea in other words they take the sorts of things that lead to personal feeling and they treat the evidence that leads to personal feeling as if it were capable of leading to your convictions okay that promotes the conclusion above the evidence now not surprisingly they do exactly the same thing at the next level right if they have a set of good reasons they treat those as if it absolutely closes the case well nobody could disagree now there's no way anybody could object now that they've seen how thoroughly i have presented my good reasons okay so they treat the kind of evidence that should lead to conviction they treat that as if it should lead to knowledge that's fanaticism fanaticism is consistently promoting conclusions above the weight of the evidence now if that's a fanatic um you know you don't have to be einstein to figure out what a skeptic is right a skeptic is going to do exactly the opposite the skeptic is consistently demoting conclusions below the evidence now usually you find these two happening in in sync right if i'm a fanatic about something i tend to be a skeptic about anyone who disagrees with me the skeptic works by saying you know you can present absolute proof to them of something and they they they say well i can see how you would draw that conclusion they look at absolute proof and they treat it as if it were just leading to a private you know a a a personal conviction okay and if you present just a personal conviction you will almost inevitably be told yeah well that's just your feelings so they're constantly demoting uh conclusions now that's a head full right there all right and it's one of the really intriguing aspects particularly in this day and age inside the new rhetoric so um there's nothing here that's hard it's not complicated you know this system you know knowledge you know belief you know um personal feeling and desire we've talked about that for weeks you understand how those are related to each other and so this schema here showing the fanatic and skeptic there's nothing nothing confusing about it but wrapping your mind around it takes a little time so spend some time with that and make sure that you you understand it okay let's sum it up close it down here's where we are you know that adherence is one of the key terms in terms of the rhetoric and you know that basically you get to adherence by looking at reality and preference preference and the technical term that that the new rhetoric uses it you know that reality is based in facts truths and presumptions as they're defined in the new rhetoric you know preference is rooted in values hierarchies and loci as defined in the new rhetoric you know that no writer ever addresses an audience that's a blank slate all audiences have already given their adherence to some aspect of the world right they've got convictions they come to the retter with already established convictions and the writer's job is to give presents to some of those things they have already given their adherence to so they have adherence they have convictions and they're rooted those convictions are rooted in their understanding of truth the presumptions they've made about the world certain facts that they understand hierarchies that they've been given values loci they've been dipping into that in order to make their convictions the rhetor's job is to focus in on some things that this particular audience has already chosen to embrace they've already given adherence to those things and call their attention to it to give presence that's what the term means in the new writer to give presence to things the audience already believes and has already concluded and how do you do that well you do that by you know stylistic devices by the way you organize your material by images by just simply pointing it out saying we all know we all believe um by argument structures remember the discussion about argument structures that's one of the key ways to to call an audience's attention to something to give presents to something that's how you do it why well because there's a new thesis out there and what you want to do is you want to take the adherence that the audience has already given to things the convictions they've already got and you want to show them how that conviction that set of convictions leads to the new thesis that's the system now look at that carefully that's the system in the new rhetoric okay the new system is you give presence to something that's how you transfer adherences that are already present over to the new thesis that's analysis that is what you do in analysis the analytical step when you are using the new rhetoric is there right there in front of you you look at what has been given presence through these various devices you point it out you show the argument structures you tap into the kinds of appeals then that are built out of those and you show how that leads to the new thesis it's not radically different from the classical model where you name a rhetorical device show how it you know define it show how it functions in this particular aspect and get you to the new thesis well you're doing that but you're doing it on a larger system now okay you're tapping into the retters processes that's analysis okay if that's analysis if your analysis is going to say the redder gave presence to these ideas these ideas show the audience has already had convictions here here and here and by calling attention to those three convictions the rhetor has brought on the possibility for the audience to embrace the new thesis okay that's what you're doing in analysis if that's analysis what happens in interpretation in interpretation we unpack what it was the writer tapped into in order to understand the writer's views of the audiences they're dealing with and we interpret the process they went through in order to show us what kind of a relationship this rhetor is encouraging in their rhetoric is this writer encouraging their particular audience not to leave their their beliefs or weaken their convictions but to understand their convictions in the context of a larger conversation where others who will disagree with them are also participating is that what's going on that's one option or is the writer talking about the particular audience's identification their the the qualities and values and hierarchies that identify them in a way that sort of pull them away from that that suggests they shouldn't be giving attention to those universal qualities of facts truths and assumptions or worse yet are you looking at a writer who is severing the relationship between the particular audience and the universal audience entirely are they saying that is to be rejected that's your interpretation you get your interpretation by looking at the way appeals are done and those appeals are what you're doing in your analysis okay so that's the new rhetoric so if we think of the new rhetoric that's how we do it as a beginning critic that's how you open it up that's how you unpack it you do that kind of analysis that looks at the appeals and then you move on to see how is the universal audience and the particular audience related in these kinds of appeals that's analysis that's interpretation and that is an introduction to the new rhetoric