I had a few comments on my reaction to the reading, as well as some comments to what my (insightful!) classmates have said thus far. And after I post my comments, I will also be posting a link to get this Rhetoric Party starrrted up in herrrr that is just a bit, um, controversial. But I think that the incorporation of controversy is just my point (that we can talk about how to talk about controversial topics through proper use of rhetoric).
First, I would like to comment on Erin's post, as I was impressed by her insightful reading of the text. I enjoyed her honesty and openness about her frustration in the process of leading her students to uncover the "correct answer to the symbolism of the creature in Frankenstein." If I can take anything away from my academic journey thus far, it would be the ability to see any text through multiple lenses. In fact, I could argue (with the tools of rhetoric!) that there is no "one way" or "correct" way to view any text—there are multiple ways to deconstruct the symbolism of Frankenstein’s creature. I think we could all get on board with that statement. However, I agree that secondary education leads our students to assuming just that--that they have to cash-in on one predominant theory and buy-in to whatever the experts tell them. Thus, their individual (and independent) thoughts or interpretations are only secondary in significance compared to the "connoisseurs" of literary interpretation. I would disagree. In fact, this is precisely want Crowley & Hawhee (does anyone else find it funny that if you switch her name around it’s “heehaw?” Obviously it doesn’t take much to amuse me) want us to understand: literary interpretation is a “rhetorical situation.” In other words, the novel Frankenstein is rich with symbolism and meaning; if a student is to truly take something meaning-full (intentional alternative spelling) from the text, then let them argue because “nothing can become an issue unless someone disagree with someone else about its truth or falsity, or applicability, or worth” (Crowley & Hawhee 22). In other words, the true “worth” of an educational journey into the world of Shelley’s Frankenstein should be a collaborative expedition with both the instructors’ expertise and a students’ ability to question (agree or dispute) the validity in one (or many) interpretations of the text.
Before I get too wordy, I did have one question about the intent of rhetoric. And when I say this, I mean to ask this question:
Can a speaker use the tools of rhetoric to mystify his audience as opposed to educating them? I’m assuming the answer is yes. But beyond that, I wonder: is there a dichotomous nature to rhetoric? Is there rhetoric for “good” and rhetoric for “bad” purposes? (Basically, if rhetorical expertise was your superpower, would you use it for good or for evil?) I think of individuals who use their political platforms only to mystify their audience—to use the audiences’ insecurities and fear to persuade them into believing an idea that lacks concrete evidence (as we were talking about the use of facts in some posts). Is this rhetorician seriously a rhetorician? A propagandist? Is there an ethical use of rhetoric?
Finally, to answer one of the book’s posed questions on page 29, I am posting a link to a video. I saw this episode air in real-time and it seriously BLEW MY MIND. I mean, I consider myself an open-minded individual. I have particular views on things, but I’d like to think that I’m willing to at least hear what the other person is saying.
The Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYXcco3573o
In the show “Real Time” with Bill Maher on March 12, 2010 he brings up an issue of “The Weekly Standard,” which features Al Gore sans clothes. The topic of discussion is (take a wild guess) Global Warming. Now, despite what I think of the topic, I was offended by the way Maher treated guest Amy Holmes, a CNN conservative news anchor (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/holmes.amy.html). Holmes attempts to point out that scientific evidence suggests that global warming is not an isolated phenomenon. Instead, she tries to mention that the cyclic nature of Earth’s natural climate lends itself to dramatic climate change (think the Ice Age, for example), and that we, as humans, are perhaps speeding up this process. As a believer in questioning the supreme validity of everything, I was happy to hear her mention this scientific proposal (something I have personally done research in as well). So of course when Bill Maher interrupts her over and over again, I felt disgusted at this behavior—much like I’m sure Jon Stewart did when he was interrupted as well. To put things in perspective, I am attentive to the global warming theory, and I would not consider myself conservative. The real issue in “Real Time,” for me, is the total lack of mutual respect. Don’t bring me a debate show without debate. Don’t tell me I can say what I think without letting me say what I am thinking. I think this is certainly a part of why Crowley & Hawhee feel that it is imperative to bring the art (and science!) of rhetoric into the forefront of our (human) consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment