Put here any observations about how a month's work with Sophists and Plato changes your outlook on rhetoric or your definition or your application. Remember to post Plato wrap-ups to Dan's former thread.
In my first response paper I had a rather wide definition of rhetoric,
“I would define rhetoric as the way in which language, both written and spoken, is shaped to clearly and effectively achieve a point (to persuade, explain, or teach an objective).”
I felt bad for having such a vague definition, but now seeing all the problems with creating a specific one, I feel that my effort was better than I thought. I really like seeing all the different definitions of rhetoric. All are extremely similar in many aspects, yet are also tailored to an individual’s ideas for how they will use rhetoric themselves. I think this is a good system, and one that actually preserves rhetoric’s usefulness. I have a feeling that if early rhetoricians had been able to come up with an all-encompassing definition, rhetoric would have become a historical study of the art rather than a study of a tool that is still useful and valid.
One thing I had not taken into account was the debate and differences between the validity of speech versus writing. It isn’t as much of an issue today, so I didn’t realize that there was one then. Becoming aware of that debate and its points has been a big help for me in understanding text and speech on a deeper level. It has also opened doors for me to explore in further study.
I can also say that I am grasping this class much better than I thought I would, and I am enjoying the struggle. I was intimidated by the class at first, and felt like rhetoric was a concept beyond my skills, but my ability to understand and contribute to discussion is getting better. Surprisingly, gaining a better understanding of what rhetoric is is actually expanding my view of it. I now see rhetoric in most of my daily activities, which is helping me apply it in more areas. I think part of my mistrust and dislike of rhetoric came from its intimidating image: once I began to understand it more clearly, I saw its usefulness. I think this goes to the heart of the problem of expanding the study of rhetoric to larger fields of study, although I am still not sure to combat this.
In my initial response paper I confessed not knowing much about the art of rhetoric other than the codes of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian for speaking well. Having delved into some of the texts of the early Ancient Greek rhetors—Gorgias, the Dissoi Logoi, the speech of Lysias in the Phaedrus—I now feel that I have not just an intellectual sense of the classical conception of rhetoric but a visceral sense. I didn’t realize what ‘exhibitionists’ these professional speakers were, they were almost humorists or vaudevillians. I’ve found exploring the attacks by Isocrates and Plato on corrupt rhetors to be illuminating, and I’m attracted to the idea of grounding public speech within a well-defined paideia emphasizing the innate nature of the speaker and ethical conduct. I’ve been contemplating how contemporary pedagogy could return to a model in which elocution and ethics are central.
Initially I situated my investment in rhetoric within my own work as a writer and performer, but now I am pondering its applicability more in my role as an educator. In teaching composition I am teaching rhetoric; how will I contextualize the rhetorical skills that I seek to cultivate in students?
As I sat in a Bharata Natyam conference last weekend, my new definition of rhetoric came to me. The speakers, from varied backgrounds, offered amazing perspectives on the scholarship (both historical and current) of Bharata Natyam. On one hand they kept mentioning young 'American' dancers not knowing the background of the dance they perform, yet they continually spoke far above the knowledge of this group. The speakers seemed to know what the other speakers had said but the nature of the specifics of their topics, various languages (bharata natyam can be performed in Telugu, Tamil, Sanskrit, Kannada, and Marathi), and their jargon it was hard to imagine their talks were directed at us. As I thought about this- the reason we study rhetoric and what rhetoric really means finally made some sense. It is basically using skill as well as innate knowledge (and don't forget the practice) to craft a presentation (whether a speech, debate, memo, flyer, book, etc.) that the audience can connect to. The speaker that can get their idea across is the one that effectively uses Rhetorical Situation and Audience Analysis to his/her advantage. If the speakers had identified their terms, translated the languages, and connected their points to what dancers learn in their Bharata Natyam classes here they might have been more effective- and there would not have been a plethora of young dancers that were doodling their names over and over for 8 hours. So yes, rhetoric is 'persuasion' and uses 'skills' but it more importantly consists of conscious connections made by the speaker to make the presentation an audience centered experience.
In my first response paper, I wrote a short paragraph on what the word “rhetoric” conjured for me at that point:
I believe that rhetoric is a broadly defined term, like culture, but that it's primarily concerned with argument and persuasion, with getting someone to do a certain thing or feel a certain way. When I hear or see the word, political speeches come to mind—not so much current ones as speeches from a long time ago, in ancient Rome or Greece, say; big blustery numbers echoing off of stone walls and spoken by towering men in togas. Maybe that's the cartoon version, or the fifties-melodrama version, but that's what I think of. In the current political context, rhetoric has a bad name. When someone is said to be "being rhetorical" or "using rhetoric," it's a negative thing. What they are saying is perceived as meaningless or empty, words for the sake of words, a promise that will be broken.
I can’t say my perception has changed. As for the men in togas image, I still kind of picture that, especially when reading Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen. But my view has been enriched. For instance, it’s clear to me that we will never, in this class or anywhere, come up with a satisfactory definition of rhetoric, or at least not with one that can stand for the ages. In my 101 class I’m having them read a short article from Scientific American on Pluto’s recent omission from the list of planets. (If you’re not familiar, the definition of what makes a celestial body a planet has been changed, and as a result Pluto has had its status revoked.) The author goes over the history of the definitions, then explains the current one in scientific terms, and ends by likening the evolution of planets to the evolution of their definitions: each process is as natural and unstoppable as the other.
This is relevant for two reasons: One, that article made me think of this centuries-old argument/discussion on what rhetoric is and how to define it as it relates to the evolution of ideas. Only the richest subjects can bear centuries worth of dialogue—the simpler ones are defined, put in a dictionary, and the book is closed. Not so with terms like rhetoric, or philosohy, or culture. Concepts like these provoke arguments, come to mean a variety of different things at different times, fall in and out of favor with academics.
The second reason that article is relevent here is because before this class I never thought of teaching as a rhetorical activity (now I wonder how I could've missed it). The pluto article is one that nobody in my class, with the exception of one engineering student, has any interest in. It was my job, then, to set it up as relevent to their lives, to introduce it rhetorically to my audience in a way that would make them give a damn. Maybe I didn't succeed with everyone, but I succeeded with a couple of them, and I think I see how I might do it better next time. A fair amount of teaching is salesmanship.
I’ve become increasingly aware of talk about rhetoric, usually triggered by the word itself. I had a friend from New Orleans visit recently, and we talked about post-Katrina politics, specifically the new housing shortage, the debates about which neighborhoods to raze and which ones to rebuild. I noticed that my friend, brought up (I could be wrong) Plato’s Republic. He didn’t cite Plato, but referred to classical rhetorical lit he had to read in law school about the idea of the masses being unable to make decisions for themselves, and what should happen is that decisions for the people should be made by a highly educated few; I guess this is dogma. I don’t know what this has to do with rhetoric other than it being a Platonic idea. I’m also thinking of this in the context of Kauffman’s article “The Axiological Foundations of Plato’s Theory of Rhetoric.” Incidentally, so far this article is my primary source of knowledge of Plato and related scholarship.
I also think of the expression it’s a rhetorical question and the unintentional irony that this line is fraught with. In my experience, this expression is usually followed by you don’t have to answer that. Isn’t this the opposite of what a rhetorical question demands. One of the ancient Greeks said to question everything; Socrates maybe? The question should incite a discourse. The asker of said question shouldn’t absolve the listener of responding.
And again I’m approaching classical rhet through a contemporary lens, and I think of rhetoric in everything: magazine articles, novels, text messages, advertising, street art, clothing, and body language. All of which argue for something. In my first response I wrote that I was “interested in the disconnect between the skillful and the irrational. And I’m interested in the blurry distinction “between ‘natural’ and ‘technologized’ speech” (Fleming, 177, “Rhetoric as a Course of Study”). But now I’m rethinking the disconnect between the skillful and the rational; now I’m thinking about how the skillful connect with the irrational. I think about the various successful (persuasive) dictators and religious fundamentalists who are skilled speakers and who obviously connect with irrational audiences. I watched an interview with an American journalist who met Osama Bin Laden during the war between Russia and Afghanistan. I perceived the journalist as a rational man, but was surprised—and also fascinated—by his recollection of the impact Bin Laden had on him in this tent in the mountains. The journalist said that Bin Laden had a quiet grace and was “cat-like.” And he suddenly realized why so many were willing to fight and die for this man.
I want to consider more how rational and irrational thought and behavior works in and between rhetor and audience.
At the beginning of this semester, I defined rhetoric as the use of language to persuade or to build identity with an audience. After the past six weeks of reading and class discussions, I have re-examined my definition. Laurent Pernot points out that the word “rhetoric” is from the ancient Greek word, rhētorikē, meaning “art of the spoken word.” (p. ix) Quintilian defined the term as the “science of speaking well.” (p. x) Pernot writes” “Rhetoric is anchored in society, and consequently it has a history that develops in relation to the general history of ancient societies. Rhetoric also aims for beauty and is bound up with taste and aesthetics.” (p. xi) In looking at the development of rhetoric, I have tried to move away from the current connotations which are mostly negative and the Platonic indictment of rhetoric as immoral and power hungry, as portrayed in Gorgias. Aristotle believed that persuasion was more effective when the orator knew the ideas and values of his audience and could gain the acceptance of his listeners. According to Pernot, “All the parts of the Rhetoric essentially come down to a vast inventory of these premises and of the means to persuade which rest upon them.” With this definition in mind, I believe Aristotle delved into the science of communication (communication has been studied as a social science since the 19th century) and used psychology as a tool for persuasion. In a sense, Aristotle can be seen as an early “marketer” of ideas, for it is apparent that he had performed a “market study” of the audience and had determined how to “pitch” his ideas so that the listener was more receptive. As I review the history of rhetoric and try to define the term, I still encounter conflicting ideas: persuasion, beauty and aesthetics, oratory, education, ethics, and philosophy, to name a few. I continue to consider persuasion a significant element of rhetoric, in part because rhetoric is communication, or discourse, about ideas, e.g., political, philosophical, and judicial. I believe style and word choice are also pertinent to a definition of rhetoric. I can only attempt to devise a concise definition of rhetoric. I define rhetoric as persuasive oral communication about ideas delivered in a style chosen by the speaker and appropriate to his subject and audience. I have basically "fleshed out" my original definition as a result of my study of rhetoric.
In the first paper on what rhetoric was, I had no idea. I can't say that I really could provide a better definition now than what I originally grasped onto as a working definition, that of how language shapes reality. Language is the mode by which we all communicate and understand. Language originates through perceptions, the first things we learn as children are nouns, which reflect the world we see. Once we learn the nuances of language (any language,) we can then use those words to manipulate how we perceive the world, this changing our understanding of it. People who master this ability to shift other people's perception with words are using rhetoric. From propaganda, to public awareness posters, rhetoric is being used (and misused?) to persuade people to believe things they may not have beforehand. This affectively reshapes reality for those people who are persuaded.
Writers have an easier time of this than do other people, in that they are shaping the reality their characters are being placed in. Plato's written world is most likely unlike the physical world he existed in. I doubt, as we have spoken of in class, that Gorgias would simply roll over and play dead to Socrates' arguments. But, since Plato is shaping the reality, the Gorgias character has no other choice. People reading over this may get the impression that this was how Gorgias truly was, and thus the fully crafted reality of Plato's pen has reshaped the reality of people who are reading his words.
Looking at rhetoric again, after the discussions and the readings, has not led me to change my mind on what rhetoric is or should be. In the first paper, I decided rhetoric was more than simply framing a persuasive argument. I felt it had more to do with the development of the student from an absorber of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. For the first several years of education, students are expected to absorb knowledge and then to spit it back out when asked. They are not asked to contribute anything new to the subject. If a student becomes adept at writing, he or she can then begin to add something to the conversation. At this point, I cannot separate writing from rhetoric. According to Poster, rhetoric is usually restricted to 1st year writing classes with the graduate programs aimed at creating more 1st year writing teachers. For some reason, this has marginalized rhetoric. I think this marginalization is on the surface only. It has to do with the definition of rhetoric people have who are not in the field. The reality is that rhetoric is a thread that necessarily runs through all academic discourse. Without it, what would the conversation in any field resemble? How can you discuss anything critically without employing rhetoric? If 1st year writing classes command little respect from Academics in general, what would happen if they didn’t exist? How would it impact the discourse happening in every field of inquiry? Language and rhetoric are intrinsically connected. In effect, language is the material and rhetoric, as many others pointed out in their comments on the blog, is the tool used to shape it into an image our audience will believe. Since we must use language to discuss any topic from mathematics to anthropology, I don’t see how it would be possible to compartmentalize or marginalize rhetoric.
In my initial response paper I wrote about my understanding of rhetoric and what I believed its main purpose to be, persuasion. I do remember thinking about rhetoric meaning the art of persuasion. I'm not sure I still completely agree with this. I think that rhetoric encompasses even more, which makes defining it even more difficult. I think that rhetoric is the art of using words, both in language and in writing. The act of using language to be persuasive is only one aspect. I can't help but to think about the many discussions regarding rhetoric and realizing my complete inability to define something so large and so powerful. The term rhetoric is often overused yet I really think that ones ability to use language well helps them attain agency. In a world dominated by money, power, and prestige I think language is one very important method to successfully communicate.
Agency seems to be an important topic inside of my head since the comment we read relating rhetoric and agency. I think the idea that one who speaks, writes and communicates well can achieve agency is an idea I can link to graduate studies. I consider my work as a graduate student my ‘work towards agency’. Once I’ve completed my graduate work I’d like to be in a position to teach, and rhetoric, or the art of using language well, will be a topic I’d enjoy teaching.
Defining rhetoric seems to be a monumental task, I’m hoping that the more I read other responses and listen to class discussion my understanding of rhetoric will increase thereby helping me create an even better definition of rhetoric.
My initial conceptions of rhetoric were something along the following lines: 1) a sort of oratorical process in which one persuades an audience to accept a given argument, and 2) a medieval method of teaching public speaking (elocution). Now having been given a large dose of Plato and his contemporaries, as well as some historiographical (Marrou and Jaeger) and theoretical background (Poster, Fleming), I have a less ignorant conception of rhetoric. I have also come to a somewhat superficial understanding of its historical preeminence within the various academic fields, professions, and institutions of Western civilization (though certainly, the rest of the world isn't exempt from such a description--I just don't know _how_ it is in non-Western cultures). I also have the disquieting suspicion that "little" rhetoric is something of a delusion. Even through non-verbal gestures and "normative" behaviors, one can discern in others (and perhaps, in oneself) intimations of persuasion and desired engagement. As much as we would like it not to be so, the art of rhetoric seems to become a habit.
11 comments:
In my first response paper I had a rather wide definition of rhetoric,
“I would define rhetoric as the way in which language, both written and spoken, is shaped to clearly and effectively achieve a point (to persuade, explain, or teach an objective).”
I felt bad for having such a vague definition, but now seeing all the problems with creating a specific one, I feel that my effort was better than I thought. I really like seeing all the different definitions of rhetoric. All are extremely similar in many aspects, yet are also tailored to an individual’s ideas for how they will use rhetoric themselves. I think this is a good system, and one that actually preserves rhetoric’s usefulness. I have a feeling that if early rhetoricians had been able to come up with an all-encompassing definition, rhetoric would have become a historical study of the art rather than a study of a tool that is still useful and valid.
One thing I had not taken into account was the debate and differences between the validity of speech versus writing. It isn’t as much of an issue today, so I didn’t realize that there was one then. Becoming aware of that debate and its points has been a big help for me in understanding text and speech on a deeper level. It has also opened doors for me to explore in further study.
I can also say that I am grasping this class much better than I thought I would, and I am enjoying the struggle. I was intimidated by the class at first, and felt like rhetoric was a concept beyond my skills, but my ability to understand and contribute to discussion is getting better. Surprisingly, gaining a better understanding of what rhetoric is is actually expanding my view of it. I now see rhetoric in most of my daily activities, which is helping me apply it in more areas. I think part of my mistrust and dislike of rhetoric came from its intimidating image: once I began to understand it more clearly, I saw its usefulness. I think this goes to the heart of the problem of expanding the study of rhetoric to larger fields of study, although I am still not sure to combat this.
In my initial response paper I confessed not knowing much about the art of rhetoric other than the codes of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian for speaking well. Having delved into some of the texts of the early Ancient Greek rhetors—Gorgias, the Dissoi Logoi, the speech of Lysias in the Phaedrus—I now feel that I have not just an intellectual sense of the classical conception of rhetoric but a visceral sense. I didn’t realize what ‘exhibitionists’ these professional speakers were, they were almost humorists or vaudevillians. I’ve found exploring the attacks by Isocrates and Plato on corrupt rhetors to be illuminating, and I’m attracted to the idea of grounding public speech within a well-defined paideia emphasizing the innate nature of the speaker and ethical conduct. I’ve been contemplating how contemporary pedagogy could return to a model in which elocution and ethics are central.
Initially I situated my investment in rhetoric within my own work as a writer and performer, but now I am pondering its applicability more in my role as an educator. In teaching composition I am teaching rhetoric; how will I contextualize the rhetorical skills that I seek to cultivate in students?
As I sat in a Bharata Natyam conference last weekend, my new definition of rhetoric came to me. The speakers, from varied backgrounds, offered amazing perspectives on the scholarship (both historical and current) of Bharata Natyam. On one hand they kept mentioning young 'American' dancers not knowing the background of the dance they perform, yet they continually spoke far above the knowledge of this group. The speakers seemed to know what the other speakers had said but the nature of the specifics of their topics, various languages (bharata natyam can be performed in Telugu, Tamil, Sanskrit, Kannada, and Marathi), and their jargon it was hard to imagine their talks were directed at us. As I thought about this- the reason we study rhetoric and what rhetoric really means finally made some sense. It is basically using skill as well as innate knowledge (and don't forget the practice) to craft a presentation (whether a speech, debate, memo, flyer, book, etc.) that the audience can connect to. The speaker that can get their idea across is the one that effectively uses Rhetorical Situation and Audience Analysis to his/her advantage.
If the speakers had identified their terms, translated the languages, and connected their points to what dancers learn in their Bharata Natyam classes here they might have been more effective- and there would not have been a plethora of young dancers that were doodling their names over and over for 8 hours. So yes, rhetoric is 'persuasion' and uses 'skills' but it more importantly consists of conscious connections made by the speaker to make the presentation an audience centered experience.
In my first response paper, I wrote a short paragraph on what the word “rhetoric” conjured for me at that point:
I believe that rhetoric is a broadly defined term, like culture, but that it's primarily concerned with argument and persuasion, with getting someone to do a certain thing or feel a certain way. When I hear or see the word, political speeches come to mind—not so much current ones as speeches from a long time ago, in ancient Rome or Greece, say; big blustery numbers echoing off of stone walls and spoken by towering men in togas. Maybe that's the cartoon version, or the fifties-melodrama version, but that's what I think of. In the current political context, rhetoric has a bad name. When someone is said to be "being rhetorical" or "using rhetoric," it's a negative thing. What they are saying is perceived as meaningless or empty, words for the sake of words, a promise that will be broken.
I can’t say my perception has changed. As for the men in togas image, I still kind of picture that, especially when reading Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen. But my view has been enriched. For instance, it’s clear to me that we will never, in this class or anywhere, come up with a satisfactory definition of rhetoric, or at least not with one that can stand for the ages. In my 101 class I’m having them read a short article from Scientific American on Pluto’s recent omission from the list of planets. (If you’re not familiar, the definition of what makes a celestial body a planet has been changed, and as a result Pluto has had its status revoked.) The author goes over the history of the definitions, then explains the current one in scientific terms, and ends by likening the evolution of planets to the evolution of their definitions: each process is as natural and unstoppable as the other.
This is relevant for two reasons: One, that article made me think of this centuries-old argument/discussion on what rhetoric is and how to define it as it relates to the evolution of ideas. Only the richest subjects can bear centuries worth of dialogue—the simpler ones are defined, put in a dictionary, and the book is closed. Not so with terms like rhetoric, or philosohy, or culture. Concepts like these provoke arguments, come to mean a variety of different things at different times, fall in and out of favor with academics.
The second reason that article is relevent here is because before this class I never thought of teaching as a rhetorical activity (now I wonder how I could've missed it). The pluto article is one that nobody in my class, with the exception of one engineering student, has any interest in. It was my job, then, to set it up as relevent to their lives, to introduce it rhetorically to my audience in a way that would make them give a damn. Maybe I didn't succeed with everyone, but I succeeded with a couple of them, and I think I see how I might do it better next time. A fair amount of teaching is salesmanship.
I’ve become increasingly aware of talk about rhetoric, usually triggered by the word itself. I had a friend from New Orleans visit recently, and we talked about post-Katrina politics, specifically the new housing shortage, the debates about which neighborhoods to raze and which ones to rebuild. I noticed that my friend, brought up (I could be wrong) Plato’s Republic. He didn’t cite Plato, but referred to classical rhetorical lit he had to read in law school about the idea of the masses being unable to make decisions for themselves, and what should happen is that decisions for the people should be made by a highly educated few; I guess this is dogma. I don’t know what this has to do with rhetoric other than it being a Platonic idea. I’m also thinking of this in the context of Kauffman’s article “The Axiological Foundations of Plato’s Theory of Rhetoric.” Incidentally, so far this article is my primary source of knowledge of Plato and related scholarship.
I also think of the expression it’s a rhetorical question and the unintentional irony that this line is fraught with. In my experience, this expression is usually followed by you don’t have to answer that. Isn’t this the opposite of what a rhetorical question demands. One of the ancient Greeks said to question everything; Socrates maybe? The question should incite a discourse. The asker of said question shouldn’t absolve the listener of responding.
And again I’m approaching classical rhet through a contemporary lens, and I think of rhetoric in everything: magazine articles, novels, text messages, advertising, street art, clothing, and body language. All of which argue for something. In my first response I wrote that I was “interested in the disconnect between the skillful and the irrational. And I’m interested in the blurry distinction “between ‘natural’ and ‘technologized’ speech” (Fleming, 177, “Rhetoric as a Course of Study”). But now I’m rethinking the disconnect between the skillful and the rational; now I’m thinking about how the skillful connect with the irrational. I think about the various successful (persuasive) dictators and religious fundamentalists who are skilled speakers and who obviously connect with irrational audiences. I watched an interview with an American journalist who met Osama Bin Laden during the war between Russia and Afghanistan. I perceived the journalist as a rational man, but was surprised—and also fascinated—by his recollection of the impact Bin Laden had on him in this tent in the mountains. The journalist said that Bin Laden had a quiet grace and was “cat-like.” And he suddenly realized why so many were willing to fight and die for this man.
I want to consider more how rational and irrational thought and behavior works in and between rhetor and audience.
At the beginning of this semester, I defined rhetoric as the use of language to persuade or to build identity with an audience. After the past six weeks of reading and class discussions, I have re-examined my definition.
Laurent Pernot points out that the word “rhetoric” is from the ancient Greek word, rhētorikē, meaning “art of the spoken word.” (p. ix) Quintilian defined the term as the “science of speaking well.” (p. x) Pernot writes” “Rhetoric is anchored in society, and consequently it has a history that develops in relation to the general history of ancient societies. Rhetoric also aims for beauty and is bound up with taste and aesthetics.” (p. xi) In looking at the development of rhetoric, I have tried to move away from the current connotations which are mostly negative and the Platonic indictment of rhetoric as immoral and power hungry, as portrayed in Gorgias.
Aristotle believed that persuasion was more effective when the orator knew the ideas and values of his audience and could gain the acceptance of his listeners. According to Pernot, “All the parts of the Rhetoric essentially come down to a vast inventory of these premises and of the means to persuade which rest upon them.” With this definition in mind, I believe Aristotle delved into the science of communication (communication has been studied as a social science since the 19th century) and used psychology as a tool for persuasion. In a sense, Aristotle can be seen as an early “marketer” of ideas, for it is apparent that he had performed a “market study” of the audience and had determined how to “pitch” his ideas so that the listener was more receptive.
As I review the history of rhetoric and try to define the term, I still encounter conflicting ideas: persuasion, beauty and aesthetics, oratory, education, ethics, and philosophy, to name a few. I continue to consider persuasion a significant element of rhetoric, in part because rhetoric is communication, or discourse, about ideas, e.g., political, philosophical, and judicial. I believe style and word choice are also pertinent to a definition of rhetoric. I can only attempt to devise a concise definition of rhetoric. I define rhetoric as persuasive oral communication about ideas delivered in a style chosen by the speaker and appropriate to his subject and audience. I have basically "fleshed out" my original definition as a result of my study of rhetoric.
In the first paper on what rhetoric was, I had no idea. I can't say that I really could provide a better definition now than what I originally grasped onto as a working definition, that of how language shapes reality. Language is the mode by which we all communicate and understand. Language originates through perceptions, the first things we learn as children are nouns, which reflect the world we see. Once we learn the nuances of language (any language,) we can then use those words to manipulate how we perceive the world, this changing our understanding of it. People who master this ability to shift other people's perception with words are using rhetoric. From propaganda, to public awareness posters, rhetoric is being used (and misused?) to persuade people to believe things they may not have beforehand. This affectively reshapes reality for those people who are persuaded.
Writers have an easier time of this than do other people, in that they are shaping the reality their characters are being placed in. Plato's written world is most likely unlike the physical world he existed in. I doubt, as we have spoken of in class, that Gorgias would simply roll over and play dead to Socrates' arguments. But, since Plato is shaping the reality, the Gorgias character has no other choice. People reading over this may get the impression that this was how Gorgias truly was, and thus the fully crafted reality of Plato's pen has reshaped the reality of people who are reading his words.
Looking at rhetoric again, after the discussions and the readings, has not led me to change my mind on what rhetoric is or should be. In the first paper, I decided rhetoric was more than simply framing a persuasive argument. I felt it had more to do with the development of the student from an absorber of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. For the first several years of education, students are expected to absorb knowledge and then to spit it back out when asked. They are not asked to contribute anything new to the subject. If a student becomes adept at writing, he or she can then begin to add something to the conversation. At this point, I cannot separate writing from rhetoric.
According to Poster, rhetoric is usually restricted to 1st year writing classes with the graduate programs aimed at creating more 1st year writing teachers. For some reason, this has marginalized rhetoric. I think this marginalization is on the surface only. It has to do with the definition of rhetoric people have who are not in the field. The reality is that rhetoric is a thread that necessarily runs through all academic discourse. Without it, what would the conversation in any field resemble? How can you discuss anything critically without employing rhetoric? If 1st year writing classes command little respect from Academics in general, what would happen if they didn’t exist? How would it impact the discourse happening in every field of inquiry?
Language and rhetoric are intrinsically connected. In effect, language is the material and rhetoric, as many others pointed out in their comments on the blog, is the tool used to shape it into an image our audience will believe. Since we must use language to discuss any topic from mathematics to anthropology, I don’t see how it would be possible to compartmentalize or marginalize rhetoric.
In my initial response paper I wrote about my understanding of rhetoric and what I believed its main purpose to be, persuasion. I do remember thinking about rhetoric meaning the art of persuasion. I'm not sure I still completely agree with this. I think that rhetoric encompasses even more, which makes defining it even more difficult. I think that rhetoric is the art of using words, both in language and in writing. The act of using language to be persuasive is only one aspect. I can't help but to think about the many discussions regarding rhetoric and realizing my complete inability to define something so large and so powerful. The term rhetoric is often overused yet I really think that ones ability to use language well helps them attain agency. In a world dominated by money, power, and prestige I think language is one very important method to successfully communicate.
Agency seems to be an important topic inside of my head since the comment we read relating rhetoric and agency. I think the idea that one who speaks, writes and communicates well can achieve agency is an idea I can link to graduate studies. I consider my work as a graduate student my ‘work towards agency’. Once I’ve completed my graduate work I’d like to be in a position to teach, and rhetoric, or the art of using language well, will be a topic I’d enjoy teaching.
Defining rhetoric seems to be a monumental task, I’m hoping that the more I read other responses and listen to class discussion my understanding of rhetoric will increase thereby helping me create an even better definition of rhetoric.
My initial conceptions of rhetoric were something along the following lines: 1) a sort of oratorical process in which one persuades an audience to accept a given argument, and 2) a medieval method of teaching public speaking (elocution).
Now having been given a large dose of Plato and his contemporaries, as well as some historiographical (Marrou and Jaeger) and theoretical background (Poster, Fleming), I have a less ignorant conception of rhetoric. I have also come to a somewhat superficial understanding of its historical preeminence within the various academic fields, professions, and institutions of Western civilization (though certainly, the rest of the world isn't exempt from such a description--I just don't know _how_ it is in non-Western cultures).
I also have the disquieting suspicion that "little" rhetoric is something of a delusion. Even through non-verbal gestures and "normative" behaviors, one can discern in others (and perhaps, in oneself) intimations of persuasion and desired engagement. As much as we would like it not to be so, the art of rhetoric seems to become a habit.
Post a Comment