There has been one thought from me after having read these articles and two others associated with Rhetoric this weekend, and it fits well into the section which Geisler calls "Information Overload."
Rhetoric for me, up until now, has always been one of those words that you hear in the English world, and go, "Yeah! Rhetoric!" and nod accordingly, as though I know exactly what is being said. And this semester, having two classes that explore the subject and its different facets has been slightly daunting - and its only the first week.
I was walking home with my roommate last week and we were discussing rhetoric - her knowledge of it, and my lack of knowledge about it. At the end of the conversation, she said something akin to rhetoric as a way of breaking down and discovering the layers in not only people, but the way they interact with each other, etc. And I realized, that as a fiction writer, that was exactly what I liked to do too; maybe the two were not entirely different.
I've finally latched onto a term that gives me a starting place to understand it: the Art of Persuasion (term used in other class). From there, I feel that I can go on and begin to slowly understand the concepts involved. The Geisler article stood out to me because it remembered both the classical origins of the craft - where I understand the persuasion part to come in, because it was mostly oratory back then - and the issues facing us now with access to so much writing and information on the web (where the ITexts come in).
During class discussion on Thrusday morning, the term took a political turn in our group, as we spoke about propaganda and the way politicians use rhetoric to convey convincing speeches, which circle back around to the classical use.
From there, my mind spiraled during the notes we took at the end of the class:
Voice is irrelevant (words are more important than sound)
Identity is irrelevant (who's talking shouldn't matter to the meaning of what gets said)
Time and space are irrelevant (anything true here is true there so what's true for me is true for you)
A valid conclusion is a good conclusion. (Dialectic can be used to make the worse argument seem the better argument)
Motivation is irrelevant (why someone says a thing has no bearing on its validity - but passion invalidates)
Bodies are irrelevant (a good idea is a good idea independent of bodies, while bodies, through passion, corrupts thought)
Instances
are irrelevant, principles are dominant (don't let a bad instance get
in the way of a good principle - deduction trumps induction)
And all of that I applied to the speech I listened to Obama give for the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington - and in thinking about that, the "philosophy of argument" seems pretty wrong.
And from there, that it seems rhetoric creeps into every part of daily lives, and we don't even know it.
This seems all scatterbrained and unconnected (I realize) but bear with me - it's only the first post, and I'm simply trying to put together a basis of understanding for a topic that I am just beginning to learn about.
Apologies for the late posting - it will suffice to say I hate technology.
I think that rhetoric creeps inevitably into our daily lives. It could be discovered in many of our daily experiences such as speaking with a friend or even persuading ourselves to get started on our homework (if we are willing to consider ourselves an audience).
ReplyDeleteI experienced the same kind of overload you did while reading the texts in spite of my prior studies of rhetoric in other courses. For me, the issue is that there is simply too much to discuss and attempt to comprehend. Even the experts seem unsure of the modern definition of rhetoric and its future advancements. They seem to spend much of their time theorizing and discussing topics for further study. While understandable, this is not helpful for one attempting to understand the complexities of modern rhetoric. One approach to comprehending the colossal subject of rhetoric may be for each of us to define it for ourselves as the semester progresses. After all, we have been using rhetoric for our entire lives. Maybe we are already experts.
Hi Autumn,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on having an informed roommate to help you out. :) I certainly can relate when you describe how confusing the subject of rhetoric is. I keep thinking that the field would be easier to understand if it was more like a science. As it is, none of the rhetoricians even seem to agree with each other. If I commit one author's rules to memory, will I be at a disadvantage when reading a different scholar's article?
Then again...I don't know what I'd do if all rhetoricians followed the same rules...and I disagreed with them.
I suppose that while room for personal interpretation is nice, I would still appreciate a guiding framework for beginners.
I really like how you broke down rhetoric as a way to understand people. I would fully agree with that statement. I think that, as writers, it is important to understand people and how they think in order to effectively communicate. Knowing your audience is not about getting to know how they think so you can deceive them (as is the reputation rhetoric has undeservedly earned). It's about getting to know them so that you can communicate with them in the best possible manner. This applies to all forms of writing from journalism, to speech, even in fiction. We must be able to communicate. What is writing without communication. It is possible to write words on a page, but if they make no sense to the audience, then they are worthless. Writing is not about the words, but what they convey.
ReplyDeleteRhetorwhat?! I believe (especially from reading everyone else's posts) that rhetoric is exhausting as an area of study. However, it is fascinating at the same time because of the complex, while inexplicable easy, way rhetoric exists. It seems to layer infinitely around us and to attempt to unravel it is mind-boggling. Conversely, as you pointed out, we use it with complete ease subconsciously. What we need is an Albert Einstein of the rhetorical situation... Nathan, can you help us out on this one?
ReplyDeleteNow consider this. What if this simple statement to Nathan fuels an insatiable appetite for discovering the ultimate secrets of rhetoric? Would he be the ultimate rhetorician, or would I be for persuading him rhetorically to discover the answer for me? It's okay, I'm confused too.