Joel Best, Social Problems

和訳して／

Often conclusions include both short-range and long-range goals. Within the short term, claimsmakers may be trying to arouse concern to make others aware of the problem, to get people to join their campaign, or to encourage the media to cover the issue. Longer-range goals typically seek policy changes by arguing that policymakers need to pass a new law, fund a program, or otherwise deal with the troubling condition in a new, more effective way. Usually the short-range goals are seen as steps toward making these long-range changes possible.

 Conclusions range from vague endorsements of change to extensive, detailed agendas for action. Early in the social problems process, when claimsmakers' primary aim is to raise awareness of the troubling condition, grounds and warrants tend to receive more emphasis. At later stages in the process, when concern about the problem has become widespread, policy choices become a more central focus, and conclusions are likely to receive greater, more detailed attention.

和訳して／

 Summary

 Grounds, warrants, and conclusions, then, are standard elements in most arguments (Toulmin, 1958). In the case of social problems claims, this rhetorical structure explains what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what should be done about it. But who hears these claims? Which audiences are these claims meant to persuade, and how do they respond?

和訳して／

 CLAIMS, THEIR AUDIENCES, AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS MARKETPLACE

 Every claim involves communication between at least two parties: those who make the claim (claimants or claimsmakers), and an audience whom the claim is meant to persuade. The audience for claims can include all of the other participants in the social problems process: people who might be enlisted in the cause, other claimsmakers, members of the media who might publicize the claims, the general public, policymakers, and so on. Audiences differ in what they find persuasive, so effective claims need to be tailored to fit their audiences' concerns. How claimsmakers understand those concerns should affect their rhetorical choices. Because there is little point in presenting claims that an audience will not find convincing, claimsmakers must devise arguments that they believe will persuade their audience.

和訳して／

 Some claims face little resistance, quickly gaining widespread acceptance among those who hear them. For example, claims about child abuse, child pornography, and other similar threats to children tend to be well received (J. Best, 1990). American culture views children as vulnerable innocents who deserve societal protection. Therefore, claims that children are being menaced by adults can arouse widespread concern. The arguments seem so compelling that it is difficult to imagine anyone opposing such claims, how could child abuse possibly be defended? Political scientists sometimes refer to claims that inspire this sort of general agreement as valence issues (Nelson, 1984), although what seems at first glance to be consensus may encompass different views.

和訳して／

 At the other extreme are claims related to entrenched controversies that will probably never lead to consensus. The debate over abortion remains intense because it features people who have taken intractable, opposing positions: some pro-life advocates argue that abortion is murder and should never be tolerated, while some pro-choice proponents insist that women must be able to control their own bodies and therefore must be free to choose to have abortions. It is very unlikely that a new pro-life claim will persuade those who hold hard-core pro-choice beliefs to change their minds, and equally unlikely that pro-choice arguments can be devised that will change the opinion of those firmly committed to a hard-core pro-life position. When addressing such contested issues, or position issues, claimsmakers know that they cannot persuade everyone; they can expect their claims to encounter opposition from at least some people who hear them (Nelson, 1984).

和訳して／

 The audience for claims is not an undifferentiated mass. Rather, it can be subdivided--or segmented--by race, age, social class, gender, region, and so on. Different segments of the audience tend to have different interests and ideologies. People may respond to a claim by recognizing that they stand to gain or lose if the claims succeed: claims probably seem more compelling to segments of the audience who perceive themselves as directly threatened by the troubling condition, while other segments may resist claims that might adversely affect them by, for example, restricting their freedom or raising their taxes.

和訳して／

 Such perceptions of interest are often linked to ideologies or systems of beliefs, different segments of the population are likely to view the world differently, to place different emphasis on particular values, explanations, justifications, and so on. As a general rule, those who benefit from existing social arrangements are more likely to view those arrangements as just, fair, and reasonable, and they are less likely to be sympathetic to claims arguing that those arrangements need to be overturned. Thus, both their interests and their ideologies make them a tough audience, while those disadvantaged by the troubling condition are more likely to be receptive to such claims. Different segments of society, then, view the world differently, and persuasive claims need to match the various worldviews of the segments of the audience toward which they are directed.

和訳して／

 Claimsmakers devise various methods to deal with audience segmentation. One tactic is to preach to the choir--that is, to direct claims toward those segments of the audience most likely to respond favorably. For example, abortion activists often direct their claims toward those who they believe already share their beliefs--as when they speak to sympathizers at pro-choice or pro-life rallies. Directing claims to those most likely to be supportive can be a particularly important tactic at the beginning of the social problems process, when claims are first being made: addressing a presumably sympathetic audience first can make more people aware of an issue, rally supporters to the cause, give claimsmakers a chance to hone their claims to make them as persuasive as possible, and create some momentum for carrying the claim to a broader, more diverse audience (such tactics for mobilizing supporters into a social movement are discussed further in Chapter 3).

和訳して／ An alternative approach is to craft claims so as to maximize their appeal to the broadest possible audience. Claims can incorporate multiple grounds, warrants, and conclusions that appeal to different people, thereby seeming to offer something for, if not everyone, at least lots of people. For instance, many advocates of vegetarianism see ethical issues as central to their cause, and they oppose meat eating as morally wrong. However, they also know that these ethical claims encounter widespread resistance; most Americans enjoy eating meat and don't consider it wrong, so moral arguments alone are unlikely to persuade a large audience (Maurer, 2002). However, other grounds and warrants are available: vegetarians can argue that eating meat is unhealthy, in that it fosters heart disease and other ailments, or they can claim that raising animals for food damages the environment. Such arguments add additional grounds and warrants to vegetarians' claims that might appeal to people who are worried about their health or the environment, even if they don't have moral qualms about eating meat. Expanding claims in this way offers vegetarians a chance to persuade people who could be expected to resist narrower ethical arguments that eating meat is wrong.

「代替のアプローチ」→「さらに別のアプローチ」；「訴求力」「訴求する」→もっと平たい言葉に変えて；「提供しているように見える」→「提供しているように見せることができる」；「そのような議論は、たとえ肉を食べることに道徳的な良心の呵責がなくても、健康や環境を心配している人々に訴求する可能性のある、菜食主義者のクレイムに追加の前提と論拠を加える。」→「そのような議論は、菜食主義者のクレイムに前提と論拠を追加するものであり、肉を食べることに道徳的な疑問がなくても、健康や環境を心配する人々にアピールできる可能性がある。」