Knowledge is Power

“From a rhetorician’s point of view, nothing is to be gained by trying to determine which of these conjectures about political correctness is true. Persons who accept either of them believe they are true because each stems from and affirms a worldview—an ideology. What is important for rhetors is:

(a) to understand the commonplaces deployed in each of these conjectures and how they are implicated in ideological positions

(b) to determine that actual or potential effects of each conjecture in order to decide which causes the least public harm.” (123)

This excerpt added a new dimension to the work we had been previously doing: the element of power. Going through the invention process and stasis theory are not simply means to determine the best arguments or methods of attack to prove your opponent wrong. Rather, they are systematic approaches to determine whose arguments, standpoints, and values take precedence in the world.

In going through stasis theory, you are not only helping to better understand your own views, but all views concerning your position. As a result, a better understanding of the issues themselves should be established. This would undoubtedly factor into your personal view of ideologies and commonplaces.

Take “traditional family values” (123) and relate this commonplace to our discussion last week. The manner of progressing through stasis theory in relation to same sex marriage certainly results from the beliefs the rhetors have regarding this commonplace.

In fact, both Arcs and Sullivan question the role of this commonplace in persuading their audience to accept their positions on gay marriage. They both allude to the necessity of upholding the idea of traditional family values; yet, their visions for what this looks like are skewed based on their individual goals. Arcs claims that allowing gays to marry would pervert “traditional family values,” while Sullivan claims doing the same would establish similar traditional values in non-traditional family settings, thusly growing the role of the commonplace nationally.

This prompted me to revisit some my thoughts regarding the previous reading, questioning how knowledge and understanding can be developed if you know all of the questions and their answers going into an argument. Perhaps the goal then of stasis theory is not to persuade your opponent to take up your position, but to see which position is most beneficial to the betterment of your society as a whole.

Being able to make the argument that your position betters society allows you, as well as your argument, to gain power: more people will support you and take up the cause on your behalf. If this is able to occur and sustain, then someday your original position can develop into a commonplace. Hopefully, to the point where people start to take it for granted, because “people do not generally make arguments about values that are so fundamental to their belief systems that they literally, “go without saying” or can be “taken for granted” (131).

Which leads me to the most impacting point of this reading: the fact that if “people were willing to do verbal and physical battle over this value suggests that its status as a commonplace was then in jeopardy” (131). This brought me back to the earlier chapters on kairos and the need to understand the timing and the context of your arguments.

By doing so, by taking into account the commonplaces and ideologies around which you are traveling through stasis theory, you can become powerful.

I can’t help but remember the popular 80s-90s PSA: Knowledge is Power. Although, in this case, I can’t help but think that language is power, or perhaps to go one step further, rhetoric is power. But then really, aren’t they saying the same thing?