Recently read two overviews of rhetoric, covering thousands of years in the field:
Herrick, J. (2004). The history and theory of rhetoric. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
And Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press.
Each of which raised many questions that I am assuming will be handled later in the books, but a few immediate thoughts on what I read:
Wayne Booth, a prominent literary studies critic, is quoted in Herrick as saying that rhetoric holds "entire dominion over all verbal pursuits. Logic, dialectic, grammar, philosophy, history, poetry, all are rhetoric." Then, what form of expressions, exactly, aren't rhetoric? I understand a rock isn't rhetoric, but when I start expressing thoughts about the rock in some way, talking about it, photographing it, classifying it, stacking it in a particular way, etc., then that is all rhetoric, right? What about a list of random words, or numbers, is that rhetorical in some way, because I am expressing the randomness of it all, and that there is such a thing as randomness (because order is a human construction) and giving rhetorical order by such nonorder? If everything we express is rhetoric, that seems sort of limiting to talk about, so I'm looking for ideas about where the line gets drawn, at least from Booth's perspective (and that of others who similarly propose a very large tent for this field).
Herrick also argues that rhetoric is "response-inviting." This seems contrary to much of the political speech I think about, intended to either be so vague as meaningless or so coded as to mean certain specific things to certain special interest groups or meant to present a defensible position, but I just don't think of rhetoric as always promoting interaction. Propaganda, for example, would have to be rhetoric, and I don't think of it as particularly welcoming to debate. I like the idea of rhetoric and its soulmate argumentation inducing more speech, but to imply that it "is" response-inviting seems a bit broad to me. Am I wrong?
On a related subject, in Herrick's section about rhetoric as community building, I wondered if the wedge tactics employed so skillfully by both major political parties today aren't the dysfunctional side of this coin that will lead to our country's, and our community's, ruin. We keep splitting ourselves up into binary issues, focusing incessantly on how we are different more than we are alike, and that might work for politicians trying to degrade the ethos of their opponents, but I think it is clearly tearing us down as a nation. If we are always voting for the least worst option, then we are never voting for the best option, and I think the worst of rhetoric -- neo-sophists? -- is at the heart of that characterization.
Bizzell and Herzberg, by the way, offer the all-important "canons" of rhetoric as:
1. Invention
2. Arrangement
3. Style
4. Memory
5. Delivery
Which made me think there must be a better arrangement of that, at least in terms of an anagram. So here are some options, courtesy of this Internet anagram maker:
These are the MAIDS of rhetoric, keeping everything tidy.
MAD IS you who forgets the canons of rhetoric!
DAM IS the word I say when I remember the canons, like, "Dam, I can remember those canons!"
AS DIM as I might be, I can remember the canons.
And so on ...
In terms of acronyms, by the way, I noticed someone in the MOO used ELP for Aristotle's three forms of persuasive appeal: Ethos, Logos, Pathos. So if I ever need ELP remembering that, ...
One last side note. Herrick states that rhetor should be pronounced RAY-tor. This is the first time I have heard it described that way, and every time I have heard someone pronounce it, they have said rhet-OR, or RHET-or, but never RAY-tor. If rhetoric is pronounced rhet..., then why would it be RAY, or should it be RAY-tor-ic? Help! I don't want to be the one dumb guy at a conference who keeps mispronouncing a core term of the field.
6 comments:
I really enjoyed reading your comments, Brett.
I would like to propose, though, that rhetoric itself is not persuasive...rather, it is the use of rhetoric that is persuasive. For example, a rock is an inanimate object, yet when you study it or visualize it it evokes a reaction. The inclusion of the affect of an item on our other senses could be part of a larger description of rhetoric. As you point out, Herrick argues that rhetoric is response-inviting.
I believe that rhetoric is the style in which a thought is communicated. Whether it is oral or visual, the visual of a car pulled over to the side of the road by a police car is response-inviting. We empathize with the driver, unless the image implies a drunk driver of course. It is how the image, or words in an advertisement, are used that is the rhetoric.
Is the 'response-inviting' too broad? I do not think so. It may require us to break the definition down into more detail, but I keep thinking that a political speech is "response-inviting" regardless of what is being said: either you agree or disagree, but the speech 'speaks' to your inner self.
On a similar note, the idea that rhetoric is 'designed' or formed by the intent of the author to persuade the audience is only one half of the situation. Lately, I have come to think that rhetoric depends on the intent of the audience. We consider politicians as having an intent to persuade voters to agree with them and therefore the politician will design a speech intended to convince people of the correctness of their viewpoint. But the audience also has an intent in listening to the speakers. They come to listen to the politician to possibly heckle or show support for a position. This intent is a critical factor in rhetoric. It drives rhetoric, it shapes it and moulds it. The audience is listening is a 'classic' modern media rhetorical comment, and it is one that also needs to be included in our exploration of rhetoric.
I really enjoyed reading your comments, Brett.
I would like to propose, though, that rhetoric itself is not persuasive...rather, it is the use of rhetoric that is persuasive. For example, a rock is an inanimate object, yet when you study it or visualize it it evokes a reaction. The inclusion of the affect of an item on our other senses could be part of a larger description of rhetoric. As you point out, Herrick argues that rhetoric is response-inviting.
I believe that rhetoric is the style in which a thought is communicated. Whether it is oral or visual, the visual of a car pulled over to the side of the road by a police car is response-inviting. We empathize with the driver, unless the image implies a drunk driver of course. It is how the image, or words in an advertisement, are used that is the rhetoric.
Is the 'response-inviting' too broad? I do not think so. It may require us to break the definition down into more detail, but I keep thinking that a political speech is "response-inviting" regardless of what is being said: either you agree or disagree, but the speech 'speaks' to your inner self.
On a similar note, the idea that rhetoric is 'designed' or formed by the intent of the author to persuade the audience is only one half of the situation. Lately, I have come to think that rhetoric depends on the intent of the audience. We consider politicians as having an intent to persuade voters to agree with them and therefore the politician will design a speech intended to convince people of the correctness of their viewpoint. But the audience also has an intent in listening to the speakers. They come to listen to the politician to possibly heckle or show support for a position. This intent is a critical factor in rhetoric. It drives rhetoric, it shapes it and moulds it. The audience is listening is a 'classic' modern media rhetorical comment, and it is one that also needs to be included in our exploration of rhetoric.
Thinking the same thing, Brett. What is rhetoric if everything is rhetoric? Where does it stop? Is all language so planned or should it be? So Kerouac's writing, meant to be spontaneous, was actually rhetorical?
Wondering what the limit is there... or if there is one.
Likewise, I find the all-encompassing definition of rhetoric problematic in terms of usefulness of study. You noted, “If everything we express is rhetoric, that seems sort of limiting to talk about.” While I don’t find it limiting in terms of being able to talk about it, I do think that much of discussion we can have about it is directionless. Thankfully, I’ve been using other concepts (learned mostly through TTU courses) about the nature of the pendulum in academic research. Most previously (say the last 20 years), the pendulum has swung toward the theoretical assumptions that everything is socially constructed, hence we use the term social constructivism. Here, the logic follows that there is no abstract truth, no divine intervention, no destiny, no that’s-the-way-it-is; rather, each action, each word, each belief, each behavior, each object is created and maintained (as in not lost) so that it impacts the individual and the larger society. This is tremendously encompassing. And while it may seem buyable from the start, it gets really complex when you start to apply it, say, laws of nature. How does gravity fit into the mind of the social constructivist? Did he or she learn that as a child from a parent, and then the school teachers confirmed it, and then the professors build far beyond it? And it seemed to be true because when the social constructivist would jump, he or she would come down? Anyway, the pendulum is ready to start swinging back down. Maybe there are some basic assumptions that we can assume without relying so heavily on social constructivism. Two notes: 1. I’m not saying that our theories on gravity are flawless (as we know they are also contextual). But we could use another example like the sun gives light. 2. The benefit of having some sense of “truth” or at least solid assumptions is that it gives us direction. Without a basis, we end up unable to move forward with research. So, we have to establish truths…even if those truths appear to be manmade and contextual. We can at least say that for this moment, xyz appears to be true [read: solid].
Side note: Such arguments about the larger picture of social constructivism remind me of Dr. Eaton’s argument that we reduce the value of a body of knowledge when we assume everything is a good contribution.
I agree that the all-encompassing definition of rhetoric is problematic. If rhetoric is everything, why do we even study it?
Brett,
I still wanted to figure out the correct pronunciation of rhetor. So I went to dictionary.com to listen to the verbal option. TROUBLE! It's different than what we thought and from what the book said!!
Listen to it at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetor
Click on the volume or audible icon.
REE-ter!!
Emily
Post a Comment