Final answer:
Arguments opposing the use of rhetorical criticism in activism include concerns that it might focus too much on form over content, be elitist, and create a disconnect between critique and practical action, but it can also empower activism through strategic analysis.
Step-by-step explanation:
What arguments oppose the use of rhetorical criticism as a tool for activism? While rhetorical criticism is a valuable tool for dissecting and understanding arguments and persuasive techniques, its use in activism is not universally supported. The criticisms include that rhetorical criticism may divert attention from action to analysis, potentially depoliticizing issues by focusing too much on form rather than content. Critics also argue that such analysis can be elitist, as it often requires specialized knowledge to understand and engage with, making activism less accessible to the general public. Furthermore, rhetorical criticism might be seen as too theoretical or distant from practical concerns, leading to a disconnect between critique and real-world implications.
However, there are also strong arguments for the integration of rhetorical criticism into activism. It can sharpen campaigns by revealing underlying assumptions and biases, provide a deeper understanding of the persuasive strategies used by opponents, allowing for more effective counter-strategies, and ultimately foster a more reflective and strategic approach to social change.