I like that Dr. Romano uses the word anxiety when talking about rhetoric. I can describe my relationship to any on-line dialoguing with the word "anxiety." I don't post anywhere on-line because of what Plato (okay, via Socrates) says about the "solemn silence" of the written word. My daily rhetorical situation is at West Mesa High School where the oral discourse I engage in goes something like this: Chris, stop thwacking your cheek and making that popping noise. Tiffany, give me the cell phone. Miguel, you cannot write and talk at the same time so please stop talking and start writing. (I do this because the public educational system requires that somebody teach the students how to sit in chairs. But that is another blog.) The written discourse centers on student produced sentences like "And that's what I think about that" and trying to engage 16-year-old students in parallelism in the Declaration of Independence. So my usage of academic language and my opportunities to write in any scholarly fashion have been minimal for five years now. Hence my anxiety when responding to this, or any other, blog or forum or mailing list, etc. I worry that not only do I sound like an idiot child, but also that I might come off sounding as if I know what I am talking about. The problem with the written word (and I am not in any way dismissing writing or aligning myself with Plato/Socrates' idea that writing is ONLY an image of the real discourse of the spoken word--I think writing is multfaceted and cannot be defined or situated in only one way) is that "the speaker" can be perceived as giving only "one unvarying answer" that "once written down, [can be] tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand..."
Various FAQs floating around about internet etiquette speak to the problem of on-line personas that cannot be questioned, the difficulty of conveying tone in the written response, the problem of delayed responses (I cannot immediately correct myself, or interpret body language to know that my tone and/or words have been wrong or misunderstood). I worry about all of this the minute I post something. I haven't mentioned it before because it seems particularly feminine to worry about such things. But Plato via Socrates gave me the words...
10 comments:
In using such a medium as the Internet that is prone to distancing people from one another due to its "virtual" vastness and distance, anxiety is (at least for me) also inevitable when trying to communicate via a blog or e-mail. Faced with the lack of an interlocuter's physical presence, the writer is burdened with not only the obligation of extracting subject matter and/or emotional content from the text that he/she is responding to, but also in having to instill a comparable degree of these components within his/her own writing. Such a process makes inevitable the "misreading" (to use Harold Bloom's term) that tends to occurs in how we interpret and respond to texts, especially in such a divorced medium as the Internet.
Even in a dialogue such as the Phaedrus, which is replete with intertextuality and potential points of misreading and misspeaking, this anxiety that you speak of seems to be continually present (i.e. Socrates' admission to Phaedrus that he was "overtaken by the Nymphs" after producing his first "bad" speech).
Daniella,
This certainly is a concern, and I am interested in how the issue seems to have evolved. In Plato's time, writing by the masses was new and people were confronted with dealing with this new form of communication. Was it just as valid? Did it have strengths or weaknesses over speech? I think people today are confronting the issue
all over again with communication rapidly becoming completely digital—e-mail, blogging, texting—and actual face to face communication is becoming hard to find. People once again have to consider if writing is a good substitute/addition to speech. I get the impression that speech is the medium commonly devalued today however, rather than writing. Regardless, they seem to be asking the same questions.
In response to your feelings, I sympathize. I am constantly concerned with how my posts will be received. It was a frightening experience for me to post an original response this week, rather than responding to someone else. I try to remember that this is a conversation, not a composition class, and idea/opinion is what is valued, but still the anxiety exists.
If modern communication continues toward the trend of writing rather than speaking, certain rules or conventions will need to be developed. Maybe an understanding that communication through writing can create misinterpretation? Not sure. Maybe the rhetoricians of Plato’s time had similar conventions for their own communication styles? (Such as knowing the difference between Socrates as a rhetorician, and Socrates in terms of Plato?)
There have now been 2 or 3 references in our readings, references I unfortunately cannot find notes on right now, to the sort of idea Plato gives to the Eleatic Stranger in Statesman, that the appropriateness of philosophical discourse should be judged by whether it “makes the hearer better able to discover the truth” (Poster). I nod my head at this and the other comments I’m thinking of that place the responsibility for successful communication on the speaker/writer. I think there should always be a certain level of anxiety on the part of the communicator about whether the message is being successfully conveyed. This what we tell our kids (writing students), that they should learn ways to guide the reader (organization, transitions, etc.) to a successful receipt of their message.
I’m continuing to look for the other references to this idea… But, pretending I’ve found them, I’m surprised that Plato’s dialogues don’t include stage directions. Did he direct these productions? I think that not knowing the intended inflections does suck the soul out of Phaedrus-written, and this “written word is properly no more than an image,” like a mirage or ghost of its potential. I wonder why he even wrote the dialogues down? Or perhaps someone else did.
Like the irony of Plato using rhetoric to criticize rhetoric, I find it ironic that we are reading his criticism of the written word, not hearing it. How else would his words have been preserved for posterity? Even if his work had been handed down through the tradition of talk-story, just think how much further removed from the original it would be than the written version. Ever play a game of Telephone? Yes, the written version has been rewritten and translated numerous times, but I think it’s likely that the written version would be a lot closer to the original than a spoken version would be.
The written word has advantages and disadvantages. The anxiety, for me, is that it doesn’t disappear as easily. So if you say something stupid and put it out there, it’s much harder to retract than if you say something and only a few people hear you. But--and here’s where I disagree with Plato--I think it’s easier to really hone your words and figure out exactly what you want to say and how you want to say it if you write it down. Some of the most difficult “conversations” I’ve had in my life were on paper. When you speak extemporaneously, there’s always the possibility that something will slip out that you didn’t mean, or that you won’t be able to think of exactly the right word at the right moment (this happens to me a lot). And though we can gauge our audience’s reactions more immediately in speaking, we don’t always interpret their reactions correctly, even when they respond verbally. In writing, we can still receive responses—after all, we’re commenting on each others’ comments, right? It may not be the immediate feedback of live speech, but it’s not a completely one-sided interaction either.
Finally, I think especially in our ever-changing modes of connecting with each other, our use of the language is evolving to meet the needs of connecting remotely. People are using acronyms, emoticons, and what Shea would call grammar B to convey, in writing, feelings, sensory experiences, humor, irony, and pretty much anything else you can convey through speech.
I also think that mouthy me’s point (under Sunday 9/16 blog) about the importance of ethos in an oral tradition is a good one and also applies here. Perhaps that it what SocraPlato means by “living word” having a “soul,” if we substitute ethos for soul. The written word is no longer connected to the author and are at least in mortal danger: “…when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves.” Poor, poor little documents. That is so sad. The ability of the author to protect and defend his little words is all about his ethos, is it not? I think I’m starting to see why it’s so important to these old guys that the rhetor be all honorable… and shit. Nope, I lost it.
To continue the discussion regarding Tim's comments on the advantages and disadvantages of the written word, I have to say that I agree with her idea that "it’s easier to really hone your words and figure out exactly what you want to say and how you want to say it if you write it down." I've used this technique with the Upward Bound students. We often begin a class with a topic that relates to them, the removal of 'junk food' from the schools. The conversation is usually animated and they try to form clear points in disapproval but their word choice, supporting arguments and interactions are not always rhetorically rich. When I ask them to write a response paper dealing with a statement, i.e. junk food should be removed from Albuqueque High Schools, I get responses that seem more engaged and rich.
I agree that writing is an important form of rhetoric. Public speaking has many benefits, including its ability to draw in the attention of the audience, allows for immediate understanding of the audiences reaction and a offers the audience a personal aspect, as if the speaker is speaking directly to each audience member, yet the written word has a different kind of presence. A book is available for generations and is difficult to alter, it seems the continuing and accurate presence of information saved in a written context has a strength that public speaking lacks.
The written word, as Tammy pointed out, has a permanence that the spoken does not. Yet, when looking at a written piece from more than two thousand years ago - or even more than 20 years ago - some things are lost. Obviously, the emotion and conviction of the speaker, but also the context. In looking at "Phaedrus," the reader who has a knowledge of ancient Greek history, customs, and mythology will have a better understanding of the work than those who lack that knowledge. As to Plato's intent in writing "Phaedrus," we are not really certain. Had we lived in that era and been familiar with Plato's thoughts as well as those of Socrates, we would have more appreciation for what he is trying to say through Socrates and Phaedrus. And the reaction among the people who heard or read the dialogue would also give us deeper understanding of the work.
I guess I hadn't thought of many of the concerns you all have brought up! I was concerned with blogging because I am not an 'expert' in Rhetoric and like Jerry mentioned yesterday, we are competing as grad students. I hadn't thought of that in response to the blog- only to contributing in class. Now I also realize we are permanently adding to the 'discourse' 'out there' in the vastness of the internet whenever we put things online or in print. But look at Dr. Romano's experiences- she was able to learn from it and keep it from repeating the same mistake now. (And probably will keep us from doing the same, hopefully!!)
I hope that people are kind and don't use our writings against us, but there is a chance for it. And it is interesting that Plato noticed it way back then. For aren't we judging (and learning) him and Gorias and Isocrates the way we are afraid of being judged. Ultimately they did leave a record, and maybe we should do the same. If for no other reason, to test our resilience!
Late to the party again, damn it.
The nice thing about being in the class together is that we can test out each other's meaning in class. And, since classes are designed to help us learn, it is completely logical to assume that we will voice opinions that we must later revise. I am quite sure I'm saying things now I will find to be foolish or not as well considered as I might have wished. At least I hope so; it's a measure of whether or not I've learned.
I would say that the important thing to remember, when posting outside a group that can measure out your ethos and personal biases, is to break things down into as may steps as possible, to minimize great leaps or 'unguided' leaps. (Because I'm familiar with lit theory, I know that there is some doubt about whether or not it is possible to guide someone that closely, but the author has to try and funnel the reader. I find that it is easiest to do so by making sure that the steps of inferrance are clearly deliniated.)
And it's not particularly feminine to worry that you might be misunderstood. We'll all work together for meaning, here.
Post a Comment