The Role of Presence in Advertising Argumentation



On Presence in Advertising Argumentation

By Emil B. Towner

1. Introduction

Well-crafted, effective advertisements are not accidents. They don't consist of arbitrarily selected graphics. They don't emphasize abstract benefits. They're not merely constructed with typefaces and white space in mind. They're purposeful, calculated structures that move consumers beyond the realm of words and into a new reality. In the words of Anthony Blair, somehow advertisements "get to us" (Possibility 37). Somehow a single page print ad can move us to believe, for example, that a frozen bag contains fresher vegetables than a grocer's produce department, or that in just two minutes we can lift away a lifetime of lines from our faces. The question is, how? How can a few words and an image have such a lasting effect in the minds of consumers?

Tied to the question of "how" has been the discussion of whether advertisements can actually be considered a form of argumentation. That is, can we answer how advertisements work by analyzing them as rational arguments? This is an issue that has received some attention, often as it relates to the possibility of visual argumentation (and, consequently, visual argumentation in advertising). On one hand, advertising is described in these discussions as an "irrational" form of persuasion. On the other hand, cases have been made for the analysis of advertisements as rational forms of argumentation (albeit, often with fallacious or invalid premises).

To begin this study, then, we must first attempt to establish some general consensus as to how to proceed with an analysis of advertising. Therefore, we begin by reviewing two foundational essays, one for each side, to determine what, if any, similarities exist and how they can help us better understand process by which advertising helps convince consumers to take action.

2. Advertising and Argumentation

In two essays that appeared in the journal Argumentation, Christina Slade argues that advertising is not irrational at all (as others, such as Anthony Blair in The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments, suggest). Instead, Slade claims that advertising is best thought of and analyzed as a conscious, rational form of argumentation. Although Slade directly addresses Blair's discussion of visual advertisements in her essay Seeing Reasons: Visual Argumentation in Advertisements, she makes a stronger overall case for advertising as argumentation in Reasons to Buy: The Logic of Advertisements.

At the heart of Reasons to Buy is Slade's claim that advertising is "implicitly dialogical" (158). Advertisers are seen as attempting to convince a rational adversary (the audience) to take a specific action (158). According to this view, the advertiser is assigned the role of the proponent, and the consumer or reader is assigned the "implicit role" of the opponent (166). In support, Slade cites the van Eemeren et al. model of argumentation as being both a social and dialectical practice that requires amplification in order to be understood and analyzed. Accordingly, Slade claims that, as with debate structures, the opponent has the right to request additional evidence, while the proponent has the right to gather new evidence. While there is no imposed rule of turn-taking, the participants "draw out the logical consequences" (166) of each other's statements in an "implicitly adversarial" (167) confrontation. Using this model, Slade reconstructs the arguments in print advertisements line-by-line, first stating a premise from the advertiser (or proponent), followed by an implicit (speculative) remark from the reader (or opponent).

In addition to her analysis of print advertisement, Slade turns her attention to television and political advertising. For television ads, she focuses on (what she calls) the enthymematic structure of television advertisements. Using the principles of charity of interpretation, she inserts the "best fit of meanings" to reconstruct ads that at first appear inexplicable (169). For political campaigns, Slade offers a brief discussion of the same strategies and fallacies that can be analyzed in print and television.

While Slade admits that some advertisements are based on valid arguments, she finds that, based on the dialectic procedures, many do not. After identifying fallacies based on the dialectic procedures, Slade surmises that advertising arguments manipulate meanings and, at times, are even "diabolically clever" (176). Moreover, she claims that advertisers "gloss over holes in arguments, misuse statistics, suggest false analogies" and that we should consider such holes and misuses as failures or examples of fallacious arguments (159).

3. Advertising and Irrationality

In contrast to Slade, Anthony Blair sees advertising as an irrational form of persuasion, rather than argumentation. Blair discusses whether it is possible for visuals to function as arguments and, if it is, are there actually any visual arguments in existence. He begins The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments by using David O'Keefe's definition argument1 (see Concepts of Argument and Arguing) to define what exactly constitutes an argument. Blair chooses argument1 (as opposed to argument2) because visuals are more likely to display reasons and claims than a form of disagreement between two or more parties. Based on O'Keefe's definition of argument1, Blair states (on page 24) the seven properties entailed in O'Keefe's descriptions, as well as one additional property that he believes should be included:

1. A claim is asserted

2. At least one reason is given in support of the claim

3. The reason is expressed overtly and is linguistically explainable

4. The claim is capable of being linguistically explained

5. The claim and reason are communicated

6. A person puts forward the claim and reason(s)

7. An intended audience is addressed

8. The intention is to gain acceptance of the claim on the grounds of the reason(s) offered.

In stating these properties (as well as a definition of visuals), Blair establishes the criteria by which he will analyze the possibility and occurrence of visual argumentation. From that, he provides detailed discussions of visual argumentation in paintings and sculpture, magazines, television commercials, and political cartoons. In essence, Blair finds that visual argumentation is possible and, moreover, that visual argumentation is not radically different than written or verbal argumentation. However, he also states that few examples actually meet the criteria of an argument. In essence, Blair claims there are a number of ways in which visuals can influence an audience and, therefore, he distinguished between two categories of persuasion: argumentative and non-argumentative (36).

According to Blair, however, the psychological and unconscious methods of advertising can be considered neither argumentation nor non-argumentative persuasion (37). Moreover, he states that, at best, advertisements might be considered irrational persuasion; however, that would require a broadening of the term "to include causally efficacious influence in general" that Blair likens to persuasion by brain surgery (37).

Rather than develop a case against Blair's claim of irrationality or posit an alternate view which positions advertising as argumentative (such as Slade has done), it may be more fruitful to first delve deeper into the Blair's points against advertising as a form of argumentation.

3.1 Purely Visual Advertising

First, it should be noted that Blair is specifically analyzing visual argumentation. Consequently, he analyzes purely visual ads, which can be likened more to a delayed-response or branding advertising. Such forms of advertising are not intended to directly persuade the reader to make a purchase. Instead, they are merely designed to create a favorable opinion of a product or company in consumers' minds—an opinion that, as Blair correctly states, is founded on unconscious identification (32). Therefore, Blair's analysis of visual advertisement cannot be carried over to all forms of advertising, especially those that incorporate both visuals and text.

Moreover, Blair's claim that "many ads provide no reasons whatever for preferring one brand to the other" (37) certainly cannot be said of direct-response advertising which, unlike delayed-response advertising, relies on claims and reasons to directly motivate readers into action.

The point here is that advertising cannot be lumped into one "irrational" category—a point which Slade attempted to address through her discussion of low- and high-involvement product advertisements (Reasons 157-8). Therefore, we must take Blair's comments in this essay as they relate only to visual advertisements, rather than advertising in general.

3.2 Admission of Argumentation

Second, even if we do limit the discussion to purely visual representations of advertising, we see that Blair actually makes a case for considering advertising as a form of argumentation. In his analysis of a Benetton ad, Blair concludes that "the ad presents a powerful, multi-premise, visual argument" (33). The ad that Blair analyzed appeared in two special issues of The New Yorker magazine that dealt with the theme Black in America (April 29 and May 6, 1996). The Benetton ad consisted of three full two-page spreads. On the first spread, three images of human hearts were surrounded by white space and each heart was labeled (one white, one black, one yellow). On the second spread, two young girls (one white, one black) were surrounded by white space. In the third spread, two hands (one black, one white) were handcuffed together. The only text that appeared on each spread was the tagline "United Colors of Benetton." Despite the lack of text, Blair states that the images can be seen as premises in support of a conclusion. He describes the first spread as Premise 1 ("we are all the same under our skin"), the second spread as Premise 2 ("adults impose the ugliness [of racism] on the innocence of children"), and the third spread as Premise 3 ("we are joined together, black and white…we are prisoners of attitudes")—all of which support the conclusion: "racism is unjustified and should be ended" (31). Clearly, Blair makes the case for the ad as an argument. The problem Blair has with this particular ad is that the argument is against the evils or problems of racism, rather than for the purchase of a product. What Blair does not consider or address is whether a direct purchase is in fact the intention (or claim) of this ad. As a brand ad, it is likely that the intention is not to motivate purchases as a direct result of seeing the ad, but rather to form a favorable view of the product or company. Based on this, we must at least consider that the claim of the ad was in fact: racism is evil and harmful to society. The result of reconsidering the claim as such would be twofold: first, it would be in line with Blair's analysis of the ad as argument and, second, if the consumer or reader agreed with such a claim, it would likely have the overall effect of positioning the company in a favorable light. With that favorable light established, additional advertisements, such as direct-response newspaper circulars or season-ending sale flyers, would have an element of ethos already established to argue why a consumer should make a purchase.

Therefore, it is at least worth considering whether advertising's lack of rationality that is described by Blair may simply be the result of a misunderstanding—that is, it may be the result of an inaccurate assumption about the claim and overall intent of the advertisement.

3.3 Advertising and Arguments1

Finally, in concluding his discussion of advertising, Blair admits that the interaction between text and visuals deserves additional study; however, he speculates that even then argumentation will not be found to play a significant role (33). With this comment, Blair acknowledges the limit of his study to visual advertising and, at least, makes room for a more comprehensive study of advertising argumentation. While Slade has offered her analysis as such a study, it may also be helpful to briefly analyze advertising using the properties of arguments1—which Blair, himself, uses because "if anything is an argument, then arguments1 are" (21). Consider again the properties stated by Blair:

1. A claim is asserted

2. At least one reason is given in support of the claim

3. The reason is expressed overtly and is linguistically explainable

4. The claim is capable of being linguistically explained

5. The claim and reason are communicated

6. A person puts forward the claim and reason(s)

7. An intended audience is addressed

8. The intention is to gain acceptance of the claim on the grounds of the reason(s) offered.

Based on even a brief analysis of this list, we can see that the L'ORÉAL ad in Figure 1 does in fact contain the properties of argument1:

1. It asserts a claim (i.e., you should purchase this product if you want to rejuvenate your skin and lift away lines).

2. The claim is supported by reasons (e.g., the product can be done at home rather than a doctor's office, it requires a minimal number of steps and short amount of time, it contains the same crystals used by dermatologists, it replenishes your skin with SPF moisturizer, your skin will be rejuvenated, and you are worth it).

3. The reasons are overtly expressed and linguistically explainable

4. The claim is capable of being linguistically explained

5. By publishing the ad, there is an attempt to communicate the claim and reasons put forth in the ad.

6. The advertiser is stating the claim and the corresponding reasons.

7. The target audience of the magazine and the image used in the ad help us construct an image of the audience that is addressed by the ad.

8. We can make a case that (through the seven properties above) the advertiser intends to gain the reader's acceptance of the claim on the basis of the reasons.

While this is undoubtedly a brief analysis using the properties of argument1, it does establish, at the very least, a basis for considering complex advertising messages as forms of argumentation, based on the paradigm case that O'Keefe establishes and that Blair accepts as the definition of an argument. With that established, we can move to a deeper discussion of advertising as a form of—to use Blair's term—argumentative persuasion.

4. A Deeper Understanding

Through our discussion of the essays by Slade and Blair we have seen how advertising has been discussed both in terms of a rational argument and an irrational form of persuasion. While these articles offer opposing views, we have also seen how (within the parameters established by each and within the context of each) legitimate points have been raised regarding the analysis of advertising argumentation. It is not the purpose of this study to either support or debunk either point of view, but rather to reach some level of understanding from which we can move forward. While we must acknowledge the differences, we have also established—through Slade's explicit points, as well as through an analysis of Blair's comments—that, at least at some level, advertising can be analyzed as argumentation.

In addition, we can draw out a similarity regarding future studies of advertising. Both Slade and Blair allude to the question of how advertising actually works. In Slade's words, advertising is a process "worth untangling" (Reasons to Buy 176), and she offers her study of advertising as one (but, she admits, not the only) form of analysis. Using different words but a similar sentiment, Blair states that how exactly ads get to us "is a question eminently worthy of study" (37). In other words, while both Slade and Blair have offered views on the subject of advertising argumentation, neither is satisfied that an answer has been given as to how advertising actually works on consumers.

In response to such questions, I offer one answer, one method for untangling how advertising argumentation works on consumers. It is worth noting that this answer focuses not on the products, nor on the procedures. Instead, it focuses on how advertising arguments are constructed in such a way as to secure, in the words of Chaim Perelman, the adherence of consumers. In developing such an analysis, I purposefully focus on the rhetorical aspects of advertising argumentation, rather than the logical products or pragmatic procedures, as we will see in the next section.

4.1 Three Aspects of Argumentation

According to Jürgen Habermas, there are three aspects of argumentation: "Rhetoric is concerned with argumentation as a process, dialectic with the pragmatic procedures of argumentation, and logic with its products" (26). Each aspect offers a different understanding of the argumentative structure. For example, at the product level, logical rules regarding claims and reasons are applied in an attempt to uncover validity; at the procedure level, dialectical rules are applied in an attempt to the uncover the speakers' sincerity and straightforwardness in reaching a consensus; and at the process level rhetorical aspects are applied to uncover how the persuasive wrapping on an argument is used to influence belief.

I propose that the previous studies discussed in this article (whatever their findings) have leaned toward the study of the product and procedure levels of argumentation. Slade's article views advertising as dialectic and treats the arguments as fallacious because the advertiser often does not answer the questions of the implicit opponent. In contrast, Blair's article emphasizes the claims and reasons which are, according to him, not present in advertising. Therefore, in the pages that follow, I offer a rhetorical or process study in an attempt to round out the discussion of advertising argumentation, as well as unwrap or answer how advertising works.

Specifically, I examine the role of presence in advertising. In the general sense of the term, presence would seem to simply describe the act of advertising: a product is present on a billboard, in a magazine, or on television. However, this understanding deals with presence as a very simplistic, unimportant element. In order to truly uncover the power of presence and analyze its role in advertising, we must delve into the rhetorical understanding of presence.

5. Advertising and Presence

According to Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, argumentation is rhetorical in that its purpose is to make the claim more acceptable to the audience. In essence, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca are less concerned about what makes an argument valid, and instead are more interested in studying how an arguer establishes that they are right. In doing so, they acknowledge that an important aspect of argumentation is the selection of material. Moreover, the arguer must not only choose, but also present reasons in such a way that they focus an audience's attention on those elements that support the argument (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 120).

In general, we can say then that presence is achieved by selecting and highlighting specific elements in such a way that those elements, rather than other (less favorable) elements, stand out (hence, Robert Tucker's use of the term standing-out-ness in describing presence). Such a presence is essential to argumentation not only because it helps motivate the audience to immediate action (which we will discuss later), but also because it orients the minds of the audience, makes one interpretation more prevalent, and provides specific elements with the significance they deserve (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 142). Based on this, rhetorical presence in advertising argumentation should be analyzed not merely as a side note, but as an important technique that must be considered when discussing the theory behind and the applications of advertising argumentation.

In the time since Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca discussed the concept of presence in The New Rhetoric, a number of scholars have added to the discussion of presence and, therefore, aid us in both understanding and analyzing presence in advertising argumentation.

5.1 Five Characteristics of Presence

One of the most cited is Louise Karon's analysis: Presence in 'The New Rhetoric'. Although much of the article focuses on what the concept of presence reveals about Perelman's theory of knowledge, Karon does offer us some insight into what presence is and why it is important. Specifically, she presents five effects or characteristics of presence (164). When viewed in our study as they relate to advertising, we can better understand the important role presence plays in advertising argumentation. First, presence is a felt quality that allows advertisers to impress upon consumers' consciousness whatever the advertiser deems important. Second, presence helps fix the consumers' attention to elements, while changing their perception or opinion. Third, the true power of presence lies in imagination. Fourth, presence in advertising is used to initiate action or incline consumers toward undertake a specific action. And, fifth, presence is created in advertising through the techniques of style, delivery, and disposition.

5.2 Techniques of Presence

In Realm of Rhetoric, Perelman offers some insight into the techniques that can be used to create presence. Among the techniques, he mentions amplification, repetition, metabole, and demonstration as important ways in which presence is created (37-39). In essence, Perelman describes aspects of style and arrangement that can be used to create a sense of presence.

In addition to the techniques mentioned by Perelman, others have been added to or elaborated on the list. For instance, in Metaphors and Presence in Argument, Charles Kauffman and Donn Parson discuss how metaphors can be used as a technique to seize the imagination of an audience and convey messages in a manner that achieves presence. Likewise, Neil Leroux (in Perceiving Rhetorical Style), J.S. Measell (in Perelman on Analogy), and John Murphy (in Presence, Analogy, and Earth in the Balance) expand the list of techniques further by analyzing the importance of analogies in creating presence.

From this list of techniques, it is easy to imagine how presence has been implicitly analyzed—yet unexpressed and underdeveloped—in studies of advertising style and language that have appeared in academic journals and in the papers of rhetoric students across the country.

5.3 Incompleteness and Concealment

Before we progress any further in our study of presence in advertising, we should address a criticism often directed at presence—the charge incompleteness. This charge is not new, as evidenced in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's acknowledgement that since presence involves the selection of one element over another, it cannot avoid the criticism that it leads to incomplete argument (119). This criticism seems to echo Slade's claim that advertisements gloss over holes and, therefore, should be considered fallacious. However, another view may be worthy of consideration.

According to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, the very act of selecting and presenting an element endows it with a sense of presence because "the thing on which the eye dwells, that which is best or most often seen is, by that very circumstance, overestimated" (116-117). In his article on presence, Thomas Mader explains that the overestimation that Perelman describes is similar to what Kenneth Burke (in Permanence and Change) calls over-simplification. In both overestimation and over-simplification, according to Mader, the isolation of a particular element over another means that one element is more precisely or concretely presented than the other (376). Since time, length, and even interest constraints prevent every element from being presented with such precision, the act of overestimation or over-simplification necessitates the concealment to some extent of others.

The point is that all arguments require the selection of materials to be presented and, therefore, all arguments can be criticized for incompleteness or concealment. Such aspects are not inherently irresponsible or fallacious but, rather, are necessary elements of argumentation. Therefore, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca offer the suggestion that such incomplete arguments must be completed by the adverse opinion. In other words, a receiver must "not make a decision before he has heard both parties" (119).

5.4 The Psychology of Presence

A deeper understanding of the psychological aspects of presence can also help us view the idea of incompleteness—as well as advertising argumentation—in a new light.

According to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, presence is a psychological phenomenon that then becomes an essential element of argumentation (117). Therefore, a root understanding of presence can be uncovered through a detailed study of the psychological phenomenon. In Figure, Ground, and Presence, Robert Tucker provides such a study. Tucker examines the concept of presence through a discussion of how the human mind perceives and interprets ambiguous information—such as a black and white image that can either be viewed as a white candlestick surrounded by black shading or two black faces staring into each other, yet separated by the white between them. By understanding the psychological lessons that researchers have learned from studying these visuals, Tucker contends that we can better understand the role of rhetorical presence in argumentation.

In particular, Tucker explains three conclusions from psychology that are relevant to the study of presence. First, a person can only interpret a figure in one way at a time (399). In essence, Tucker explains that although a figure (such as the candlestick/face image) may be interpreted in a variety of ways, the human mind can only consciously consider one interpretation at a time. It is important to note, however, that the other elements do not disappear, but instead take on a figure-ground dimension (400). As is the case of the candlestick/face image, one element becomes the foreground or the figure we see, while the other is sustained merely as the background or what Tucker calls the ground. According to Gestalt psychology, we cannot see both at the same time (399). In other words, the simple act interpreting one element hinders the other elements from emerging or being interpreted. This conclusion adds insight into our discussion above regarding how concealment is an inherent result of argumentation, rather than an irresponsible omission on the part of the arguer.

Second, a person may switch from one interpretation to another (401). At the heart of this point is that, although some interpretations may be easier to see, the human mind has the ability to "toggle" between viewing the figure or the ground. Based on this ability, we can see that the person viewing the image has at least a limited amount of control over what she views.

Third, a person may be encouraged to interpret a particular figure or to switch between interpretations. Although the human mind can be encouraged in this way, Tucker is careful to note that a person isolates and interprets figures based on her "attention and needs" (402). Therefore, any encouragement of which interpretation to view must be considered a direction of attention or a heightening (or diminishing) of her needs. As Tucker states, an arguer can "draw the audience's attention to one aspect of an image indirectly, by highlighting aspects consonant with the desired interpretation and dissonant with other available interpretations" (403).

Tucker notes that the lessons learned from these psychological conclusions, are echoed in Perelman's discussion of presence:

"The speaker's efforts are to be praised when he draws attention, through the talent of his presentation, to events which, without his intervention, would be neglected but now occupy our attention. What is present for us is foremost in our minds and important to us. Curiously, what loses in importance becomes abstract, almost nonexistent." (Realm 36)

Therefore, Tucker claims that we can "profitably follow the trail of presence, figure, and ground from the visual realm into the domain of language" (403). In doing so, he discusses that readers can render words and phrases with meaning in only one way at a time, that readers can switch between interpretations, that such switches can be verbally and textually encouraged, and that texts can contain different levels of ambiguity.

5.5 Suppression of Presence

An extension of the psychological and concealment articles is the idea that an arguer not only has the ability to bestow an element with presence, but she can also suppress the presence of an element. Since a person can only interpret a figure in one way at a time, the elements that are not present become suppressed. In The New Rhetoric, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca briefly addressed the phenomenon they called “suppression of presence” by stating that presence has both negative and positive effects that are equally noteworthy (118). In their article on metaphors and presence, Kauffman and Parson add to that discussion. Specifically, Kauffman and Parson focus on how, in contrast to metaphors that ignite imagination to create presence, "faded" or "dead" metaphors numb imagination to suppress presence.

According to Kauffman and Parson, faded metaphors have two understated qualities. First, since they are cloaked in obscurity, faded metaphors “deliberately avoid the quality of presence” (96). Typically, the terms faded or dead are used to describe metaphors that have become overused and have lost their ability to ignite the audience’s imagination. However, the power of faded metaphors in shaping an argument has less to do with their unimaginative qualities and more to do with their inaccessible meaning. A trite expression may not ignite the imagination or bestow presence on an element, but it will not completely diminish or suppress it either. An obscure metaphor or a scientific expression, however, can have a diminishing effect. In cases where the audience lacks the experience to understand an expression, they often assume it is a matter of interest only to experts and, consequently, they leave the discussion to the experts. Suppression of presence, therefore, can be thought of as a technique intended to “distance the argument from the broad public audience and speak instead to a narrow elite” (99), thus removing it or suppressing it from the public realm or, at least, from the center of attention.

Second, suppression of presence should not be attributed to incompetence or lack of imagination on the part of the arguer, but rather it should be analyzed as an effective technique used by the arguer to “reinforce the status quo” (96). Kauffman and Parson explain that metaphors cannot only be tied to helping an audience understand something new, but also to developing new premises from which assent is born (96). In contrast, trite and inaccessible expressions can be used to conceal a controversy and force the audience to focus only on familiar premises. The effect is that faded metaphors give “substantial presumption to the way things are” and, therefore, place “the burden of proof on those who want to depart from the existing order” (96).

5.6 Time, Place, Relation, Personal Interest

In The New Rhetoric, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca assert that (in addition to overestimation) four conditions determine whether an argument or element is made present. In particular, they discuss time, place, relation, and personal interest (118). In other words, for an element to be present to us, we must be conscious "that a thing exists at a given time in a locatable place, that we understand its relationship to us, and that we appreciate that it is to our interest to acknowledge the reality of this phenomenon" (Mader 376). These concepts of time, place, relation, and personal interest can be found in discussions that elaborate on presence. For instance, in Robert Tucker's discussion of how the human mind cannot see two interpretations at once, he also establishes the field of time as important to our understanding of presence (406). In addition, Alan Gross extends the concept of presence to include manipulations of time, space, and the figure and ground of an argument. Finally, Thomas Mader explains how an arguer can give presence to the future, thereby motivating people to action by freeing them from their current existence. We will examine these elements in the next few sections, as well as in our analysis that follows.

5.7 Presence as Figure and Ground, Space, and Time

In Presence as Argument in Public Sphere, Alan Gross analyzes how presence is achieved through the manipulation of figure and ground, space, and time.

By analyzing figure and ground (two terms which seem to echo Tucker's discussion of psychology and presence), Gross discusses metaphorical ways that an arguer focuses the attention of an audience. For example, Gross points out that by writing "hundreds of thousands of Austrians" a writer hides the primary victims of the holocaust—i.e., the Jews (8). In other words, the writer highlights the nationality of the victims (Austrians) in the foreground and, in doing so, relegates the religion of the victims (Judaism) in the background.

By analyzing space, Gross discusses how the arrangement or order of a textual or experiential argument can endow elements with presence. For example, one element of the argument may not be given an equal amount of space. In addition, an element may be included as a sub-category or as a counter position of another, rather than as a topic or element in its own right. Gross also analyzes how omission and "place of pride" influence which elements are made present (13).

Finally, by analyzing time, Gross examines how time can be expanded, contracted, or suspended in an argument to create presence. For example, in analyzing an exhibit of Germany's invasion of Austria in 1938, Gross notes that the exhibit expands time in its discussion of the Austrian resistance movement by noting how it later was influential in post-war politics. However, on the topic of Jewish persecution, the exhibit contracts time by only focusing on the year of the invasion (1938) in which Jews were humiliated, rather than the years (1939 to 1949) in which Jews were annihilated (15).

As part of this analysis, Gross provides us with a new set of tools to understand how presence is created, and he moves the discussion of presence beyond purely linguistic arguments into new areas, specifically historical museum exhibits.

5.8 Motivating Action

In On Presence in Rhetoric, Thomas Mader focuses on two questions: first, why is presence essential in argumentation and, second, how is it achieved? Although aspects of this paper have already discussed the importance of presence in argumentation, it is worth examining it again in the context of Mader's position.

In answering why presence is important, Mader argues that, by making an argument present, we actually create a "state of transcendence" which frees the audience from their current context and enables them to act (378). In essence, Mader describes how people (or, in our case of advertising, consumers) make decisions based on their current situation. For our purposes, if a consumer is satisfied with the cavity-fighting ability of the current toothpaste she uses, then only that satisfaction is present to her. Mader argues that as long as the status quo is present, than people will not act, regardless of the logic behind an argument (378). However, if we argue for a stance that is different from the status quo and we argue in such a way that it becomes present (or fills the consciousness) then the person will be freed to act or accept the new stance.

This discussion of why leads to the second question of how. In analyzing how presence (or this state of transcendence) is achieved, Mader states that people cannot move from one position (Point A) to another position (Point B) without understanding, first, why they want to leave and, second, how likely it is that they'll arrive at the alternate position (Point B). Therefore, for an argument to gain adherence, it must be put forth in such a way that a person is willing to accept it, regardless of what doubts a person may have about either abandoning Point A or actually achieving Point B. In other words, the case for Point B must be made so strong that the only thing present is the "inadequacy in remaining at Point A" (Mader 381).

Based on Mader's discussion, we could say that by endowing Point B with presence, an arguer is, in effect, establishing the status quo as so inadequate that a person not only recognizes the logic or reasoning behind Point B, but feels compelled to accept or act upon it. Such an understanding of how presence transcends the status quo—as well as the doubts that arise from leaving it—undoubtedly sheds new light on our understanding how effective advertising persuades and motivates consumers to action.

5.9 Synergy of Global Presence

To conclude our examination of what presence is and how it works, we consider two final ideas—synergy of presence and the reality it creates. In Chaim Perelman, Alan Gross and Ray Dearin examine presence not as an effect of individual techniques, but rather as a global effect. In doing so, they differentiate between first-order effects and second-order (or global) effects. First-order effects refer to the presence endowed by individual techniques such as metaphors, repetition, arrangement, and so on (137). When, an argument is viewed as a whole, however, these first-order effects "form patterns that create a cumulative, second-order effect" (142). Gross and Dearin's concept of first-order presence combining into a global presence is similar to Tucker's discussion of presence as a Gestalt effect. In his article on psychology and presence, Tucker states that smaller patterns may seem to lead in one direction or in no direction at all. However, "with a single phrase or turn, the speaker recontextualizes the prior elements" into "a newly emergent figure—a meaning for the work as a whole" (408).

Moreover, despite the claims of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, such a second-order or global presence has "existential implications" (Gross and Dearin 150). This means that when an argument is made present, it doesn't just fill our consciousness, "it alters our world" (151). As Karon puts it, when an arguer establishes presence, she is elevating "one of the elements of the preferable to the status of one of the elements of the real" (178). In other words, to be persuaded by global presence "is to live in a world made significantly different by the persuader" (151).

In this global concept lies the true power of presence in arguing for the purchase of a product, and it is with such an understanding that can best analyze how advertising arguments work.

5.10 Analyzing Presence in Advertising

Using the broad understanding of both the individual- and global-effects established above, I propose that we can uncover not only how specific elements, but also how the overall claim of advertisement construct effective arguments. To test such a proposal, I would like to first highlight obvious areas where presence plays an important, albeit individual role in advertising argumentation.

For example, in the Stouffer’s ad (Figure 2), we see how foreground and space can be manipulated. As is obvious, the headline proclaims freshness. In order to make that proclamation present, the advertiser places the headline and the image of freshly cooked food in an arrangement where they will be viewed as the foreground, while the image of the frozen package is placed further down. In addition, the fresh food takes up roughly one-fifth of the overall ad space, while the frozen package is relegated to a one-inch area. These manipulations help fill the mind of the reader with the concept of freshness, rather than frozen.

Another example of presence in advertising is the suppression of presence through faded metaphors or expert language. In the Suzuki ad (Figure 3), we see how suppression helps fill the mind of the consumer with one message, while different message is perhaps more valid. Here the text is written in such a way to make the consumer believe that the Suzuki Forenza includes everything she wants at a low price (i.e., $13,994). However, near the bottom of the ad, the actual suggested retail prices are stated in contractual language that suppresses the information and promotes the status quo of low price that is established above.

With these more blatant individual examples of presence established, we can delve into the deeper discussion of global presence in advertising argumentation. To do this, I will analyze presence in a full-color magazine ad for L'ORÉL's Micro-Dermabrasion Kit (see Figure 1). The left half of the ad features a close-up of a woman's face. The face is presented with a clear complexion, even skin tone, and no visible lines or wrinkles. The right side features a shot of the product packaging in the lower right corner, with the ad's text above it. The text features a headline ("In just 2 minutes, the miracle of micro-dermabrasion") and three subheads (one introducing the product name, one stating it can be used "at home," and one emphasizing the time- and step-efficiency of the product). This ad uses presence to develop the claim that the reader should purchase this product based on the presence of two reasons. The first reason is that this product is easy—that is, it requires less time and fewer steps than a visit to the doctor's office. The second reason is that this product really works.

Reason one (i.e., ease of use) is established through a number of techniques. First, it is established through repetition of the number 2, which is featured four times in prominent positions. In addition to repetition, the idea of ease is made present through the use of color (which places it in the foreground), larger font size (which allocates more space to it), and the arrangement (which places the idea of ease at the beginning of the argument, as well as before the detailed body copy). Finally, ease is driven home by arrangement (appearing at the end of a sentence, which is the second-most prominent position of a sentence) and by foreground (by highlighting "at home" from the text with an ellipsis before it and an eye-catching asterisk after it).

Reason two (i.e., the effectiveness of the product) relies on space, foreground, and time. At even a quick glance, it is clear that the woman's face takes up nearly half of the overall ad space. In addition, while some textual elements are put in the foreground of the other textual elements, the image of the face is placed in the foreground of the entire ad. This foreground is, in part, due to the relative size of the figure; however, it can also be attributed to the simplicity and order it conveys, as opposed to the chaos and busyness of the right-side. The result of both is that it is difficult to look at the ad without looking at the woman's face. Finally, I propose that this simplicity and order manipulate the time it takes to comprehend reason two, in relation to reason one. In an instant, it is clear that the woman's face is free of lines, wrinkles, and imperfections of any kind. Moreover, it is clear that the smooth, healthy skin is intended as a demonstration or evidence of how well the product works. It should be noted that, despite the criticism of photographic touch-ups that can arise, such images often still have the rhetorical effect of presenting, at least, the possibility of evidence.

As Gross and Dearin have stated, such individual techniques have the cumulative effect of endowing a global presence that alters the world in which consumers live. Previously, consumers may have believed that micro-dermabrasion was a time-consuming procedure that had to be performed by a dermatologist. More than merely promote a product or argue rationally, the advertiser is attempting to transform that belief in the minds of target consumers who are either considering or a currently undergoing micro-dermabrasion at a doctor's office. In effect, the advertiser is proposing that effective, non-doctoral micro-dermabrasion is at least possible, and at best easier. If that idea can be delivered clearly and powerfully enough, than the only thing conscious to consumers will be the global presence of the status quo as inadequate. In short, it will motivate them from Point A to Point B or from inactivity to purchasing the product.

6. Conclusion

As we have seen, the discussion of whether advertising can in fact be considered argumentation has varied. Past articles have positioned advertising as either a rational argument or an irrational form of persuasion. However, by examining both, we have provided evidence that through either approach, it is possible to at least consider and analyze advertising argumentatively.

Furthermore, we have seen that, while past studies have provided a foundation from which to begin our analysis, they have only focused on two of the aspects of argumentation—specifically, the aspect of dialectical procedures and the aspect of logical products. However, these aspects have struggled to uncover how advertising arguments actually work. Therefore, I have proposed a method for analyzing the third aspect—process—through an examination of presence in advertising. I began this examination with a detailed exploration of presence (including techniques; psychological conclusions; suppression of presence; figure and ground, space, and time; motivating factors; and the synergy of global presence). Finally, using this detailed understanding, I demonstrated we can better understand the argumentative process of advertising, as well as how it attempts to transform the reality of consumers by filling their consciousness with the presence that the status quo is inadequate, thus motivating action.

While I have attempted to produce a fruitful understanding of presence in advertising, I readily admit that such an understanding is only the beginning. Future studies can not only offer additional, more detailed examples of analysis, they can also branch into other areas of argumentation, such as presence in the visual argumentation of advertising. It is with an eye toward these future studies and analyses that I offer this article on presence in advertising argumentation as a starting point.

Emil, a very pleasing thinkpiece/researchpiece. I think this sort of approach is probably necessary to begin uncovering argumentative aspects of advertising – it's clear that focusing just on the products of argumentation is insufficient. I'm not entirely sure that presence (a la Gross) is the missing link, but I can see how it works in the overall picture. I'm still thinking that the dialogic aspect of an ad is what allows us to view it as an argument, but it's so hard to test – maybe we could think of a usability test where we get people to think aloud while reading an ad?

What I'd also like to see here would be less reliance on the visual as you work towards your thesis. I think it muddies the water. Shouldn't I be able to treat a banner behind an airplane at a football game that says "Eat at Joe's" or a newspaper one-liner that says "A Diamond is Forever" with the same approach? Or even a longer textual ad with no graphics at all. Then we could bring the question of visual argumentation into the discussion later.

Anyway, good work: A

Works Cited

Blair, J.A. "The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Argument." Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (1996): 1-10.

Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1965.

Gross, Alan G. "Presence as Argument in the Public Sphere." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35 (2005): 5-21.

Gross, Alan G., and Ray D. Dearin. "Presence as Synergy." Chaim Perelman. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003. 135-152.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. by Thomas McCarthy. Boston, 1984: Beacon Press.

Karon, Louise A. "Presence in The New Rhetoric." The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response. Ed. Ray D. Dearin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989. 163-178.

Kauffman, Charles, and Donn W. Parson. "Metaphor and Presence in Argument." Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of Assent. Ed. David Cratis Williams and Michael David Hazen. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1990. 91-102.

Leroux, Neil R. "Perceiving Rhetorical Style: Toward a Framework for Criticism." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 22 (1992): 29-44.

L'ORÉAL. Advertisement. People 14 February 2005: 137.

Mader, Thomas F. "On Presence in Rhetoric." College Composition and Communication 24 (1973): 375-381.

McQuarrie, Edward F., and David Glen Mick. "Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language." The Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1996): 424-438.

Measell, James S. "Perelman on Analogy." The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response. Ed. Ray D. Dearin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989. 179-190.

Murphy, John M. "Presence, Analogy, and the Earth in Balance." Argumentation and Advocacy 31 (1994): 1-16.

O’Keefe D.J. "The Concepts of Argument and Arguing." Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Eds. J.R. Cox and C.A. Willard. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1982. 3-23.

Perelman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971.

Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.

Slade, Christina. "Reasons to Buy: The Logic of Advertisements." Argumentation 16 (2002): 157-178.

---. "Seeing Reasons: Visual Argumentation in Advertisements." Argumentation 17 (2003): 145-160.

Stouffer's. Advertisement. People 22 June 2005: 97.

Suzuki. Advertisement. People 14 February 2005: 138.

Tucker, Robert E. "Figure, Ground and Presence: A Phenomenology of Meaning in Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech 87 (2001): 396-414.

-----------------------

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 2

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download