I found this article very accessible, and I can see how rhetoricians can find commonplaces useful. (I thought the comment about rhetoricians needing to be skilled at tracking down suitable proofs for their arguments, like hunters and fishermen tracking down prey, an amusing and apt comparison!) I also thought that the distinction made between modern topics and rhetorical commonplaces went a long way to helping me understand how commonplaces worked--and I agree, having ideas familiar to an entire community/country/etc to draw from when making a argument can be extremely effective. The examples presented by the authors also worked well to illustrate their ideas. I am also glad that the authors made the statement that commonplaces do not have to be true to exist or to be powerful in language.
While commonplaces are clearly useful, I also see how they could be over-used by a rhetorician because of their high accessibility. An argument based entirely on these commonplaces, particularly the ones used most frequently, would lose effectiveness quickly and would put the arguer in danger of being seen as a fraud. Cliché comes to mind. Perhaps in Greece the frequent use of commonplaces was encouraged as a result of the repetitive oral tradition of the time, but I have a feeling that many of today's audiences would oppose the idea of commonplaces if they realized the frequency in which they are used, particularly in manipulation.
4 comments:
I got nothing to say about Aristotle, so I hope a response to "The Commonplaces" will suffice for this week.
Alyssa, title and author please, and where I may find this article.
This is the article handed out in class. Crowley and Hawhee, The Commonplaces. It is fourth on the list of class files.
I, too, found this article on Commonplaces engaging. For one thing, Crowley and Hawhee used common language. They also used common themes in American discourse as examples, e.g., abortion and political correctness.
I noticed that the authors said "the distinguishing mark of a commonplace, rather, is that it is widely believed."
And that made me think maybe we do not have as many commonplaces in American rhetoric as we think we do because I question exactly what beliefs are WIDELY held. On the specifics of few subjects is there much agreement in American life. For example, everyone is in favor of security. But then the argument breaks down as to how to achieve that security. To some, achieving security requires that we be at war in far-off places; to others, it means stepped-up diplomatic efforts with countries with whom our foreign policy is at odds; to still others, security entails stricter immigration and naturalization policies as well as enforcement of our borders; and to others, security demands compromising our civil liberties. Not much agreement other than on the premise that we all need "security."
Crowley and Hawhee go on to say, "Whether we believe these commonplaces or not, they provide the terms within which American discourse works. Rhetors cannot escape the commonplaces of American public discourse, and they overlook them at their peril."
I find it interesting that in 2004 the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press published a report saying: “Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public’s viewing habits." The report also went on to say, “The public’s evaluations of media credibility also are more divided along ideological and partisan lines." So, as we choose the media that filters the news in accordance with our own ideologies, we are encouraging the fractured commonplaces of our discourse.
Yes, I believe we are a fragmented and fractured society. But I do see commonplaces, fractured as they are. I see Americans as parts of **several** communities at once. Some are political parties (dems vs repubs), some are income-based (soccer moms), some are tech based (gadget owners) and so on. This includes all of the sub cultures that we join, participate within, and then dissolve out of. At our high school, the groups are goths, skaters, thuglets, preps, punks, etc. Kids identify with one group one year, then switch identities the next. I remember doing this myself—a normal part of becoming a separate Self (as much as we can think of ourselves as Self in these postmodern days). And it continues into adulthood. Those that are financially sound know the rhetoric of Wall Street. Those that are in the ghetto know the rhetoric of the probation system, soccer moms know soccer team rhetoric, etc. It seems to me that the ones with power try to speak to as many groups as possible at a time, and tailor each interaction (speech, news story, conversation, memo, etc.) according to the audience. I am thinking specifically here of Hilary Clinton and her speech some months back to a Black audience. She literally altered her oral speech pattern to sound more southern, more down home, and was widely criticized. I think she was trying to communicate using the commonplaces. It wasn’t successful, but I think she and all other public entities, including the media, big and small, network news, bloggers, etc. etc.) try to tap into the commonplaces, consciously or subconsciously. They get in trouble if they forget who they are talking to, or forget who they spoke yesterday. And it all leads back to, what is real and what is rhetoric???
Post a Comment