1. The Threat	2. The Bonding	3. The Cause	4. The Response
1. Alerting the audience to a threat (a danger, a harm, any "bad") from a foe or enemy, is the first step. Persuaders are problem-makers who intensify a threat by using words (warnings, name-calling, horror stories) and images (atrocity pictures). Persuaders know that people have predictable fears, which can be summed up in one sentence:"We fear that someone stronger (DOMINANCE) will take away our life (DEATH), our possessions (DESTRUCTION), our territory (INVASION), our freedom (RESTRICTION); or that someone else has more (INJUSTICE); or that a human system will break down (CHAOS).	2. In all causes, three basic themes are the same, involving: Unity ("united we stand"), Loyalty ("be true to your . . . ") and Pride ("we're number one"). Bonding activities involves many kinds of organized group activities (teams, parades, music, picketing, chanting, wearing uniforms). Such activities are important not only for gathering the group together, but also for keeping it together, ready for action. Once a group is bonded, a structure and organization comes into being. Individuals often gain self-esteem from joining such groups. People, especially leaders, have roles to play and jobs to protect. So, bonded groups need a sense of movement and progress, often done by introducing new threats and new causes.	3. A cause involves a feeling of duty to defend someone from a threat and gain a benefit. People involved in a cause often have a sense of moral superiority, self-righteousness. ("We are informed and good; they are ignorant and evil.") Causes often conflict, sometimes directly, more often indirectly. Opponents often disagree on what is the main issue. Dominance, or power, is sometimes the "hidden agenda." Related causes often cluster, so group-bonding attempts often overlap. Cause rhetoric can sometimes be controlled, like a thermostat, by organized groups, but sometimes gets out of control, like a wildfire, because individuals may internalize a strange mix of messages and respond in violent ways.	4. Response is the intent (purpose, ultimate goal): to gather together the collective energy of a group, direct it to take a specific action. A gathering process (an escalation) may go on in many ways, but commonly a series of "horror stories" seeks to increase tensions to the point of a "release." Triggering this needs pacing, timing. The audience has to be aroused and emotionally engaged Most triggering language emphasizes degree and extremity ("last straw... we've had enough." An urgency plea (Now!) is often used. Effective cause group rhetoric identifies specific actions (fight, stop, free, change, keep on, vote) to be taken by the receptive audience.

Cause Groups (political, social, religious) seek committed collective action using emotional appeals. The persuasion of any cause group can be analyzed with this predictable four-part pattern of the "Pep Talk," a useful structural framework to identify and to sort out parts of complex, emotional controversies. <><> <> Some suggestions: Analyzing the rhetoric of any "Cause" groups (e.g. related to controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, war, the environment) is difficult, very tough for anyone trying to be calm, deliberate, and rational because the words and images are deliberately designed to incite, inflame, stir up the emotions, and make people angry or afraid. <> Only bit and fragments of political messages are usually heard or seen (often edited by others): a picket sign, a brief TV shot, a slogan, a rumor. <> The sequence (in which these parts are first noticed) varies; often the final response is the first thing noticed by outside observers. Rearrange or reorganize these parts by using this 4-part framework. <> Surface variations, different ways of saying or suggesting the same basic concepts, are to be expected. People use different phrasings, and often change focus or shift premises. Inconsistency is common. Observers need to be alert, flexible, seek dominant impressions. <> Implications, suggestions, and omissions are often made, so an audience co-creates the message by making inferences -- often "jumping to conclusions" -- allowing the persuader to have a "plausible deniability" to deny responsibility: "I didn't say that! <> <> <> Why analyze patterns of cause rhetoric?Analysis of predictable patterns of persuasion has limited value: it doesn't tell us which side is "right," what charges are true, what evidence is reliable, or what to do. But, such analysis does help us to sort out some very complex emotional arguments, to identify examples and define key issues. As average citizens, we will never have access to the inner circles of power in politics, governments, or among the professional persuaders of the many organized cause groups which target us as receivers of the messages. But, we can prepare ourselves by knowing the basic tactics used by all. Our understanding may help us from being deceived or exploited by others, or from being self-righteous or narrow-minded ourselves. ||| Classroom teaching aid, pro bono public, from Persuasion Analysis | © 2008 by Hugh Rank | More at http://faculty.govst.edu/pa