What is rhetoric?

What is rhetoric? I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that when this question was posed to the class a week ago, I didn’t have a clear idea other than it had to do with language and the communication of ideas. I’ve never really thought about it, let alone been inclined to try and make sense of it. So having no prior rhetoric coursework and very little “scaffolding” on which to build, please bear with me as I begin my reflections from square one…

The first chapter of Crowley and Hawhee’s textbook was extremely enlightening for me; a “crash course” in rhetoric, so to speak. It fascinates me to examine the history of rhetoric and how the ancients viewed it as compared to how we view rhetoric today. Ancient teachers invented rhetoric “so that they would have means of judging whose opinion was most accurate, useful, or valuable (2). It seems to make perfect sense that considering all sides of an issue would lead to exactly what rhetoric’s creators had envisioned. What fails to make sense is how we, as a society, with all of our technological, scientific, and academic advancements, seem to have lost sight of rhetoric’s original purpose and benefit. It has become increasingly apparent that in today’s society, as cited through numerous examples in of the textbook, people tend to argue their opinion on an issue without regard for opposing perspectives. The authors suggest that “Americans tend to link a person’s opinions to her identity” (5), as is the case with the book’s discussion on the confrontation involving Karl Rove, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David, as well as the Crossfire incident involving Jon Stewart. (By the way, thank you to Crowley and Hawhee for using current examples to illustrate their points. The discussions in both chapters helped clarify the issues.)

In addition to the history of rhetoric, as an elementary school teacher I also found the discussion on page 25 particularly relevant. The fact that “ancient teachers never assumed that there is only one way to read or interpret a discourse” brings to mind the assignments we give to assess students’ comprehension of text, and that “unintended meanings happen because written letters and punctuation marks are ambiguous.” As I consider this, I wonder how we as educators can be sure that our assessments of students are valid. If misinterpretation can be attributed to writer as well as the reader, how can be determine on a student by student basis exactly where the breakdown in communication stems?

Finally, the discussion on kairos: the introduction of another completely new topic for me to consider. (Did I mention starting at square one?) I have always viewed time as a predominantly linear concept, perhaps placing too much emphasis on the elementary “time lines” we develop in social studies. What comes to mind now is the saying that “timing is everything,” which seems especially relevant now that kairos adds another dimension to the discussion (no pun intended). After reading chapter 2, the “timing” factor on issues such as gun control, school mascots, etc. explains society’s tendency to ebb and flow in its view of importance. Again, I appreciate the current examples chosen by the authors to cite their points.

Rhetoric makes for a complex topic of discussion, and I find myself thinking about things in ways I haven’t previously; more open to different ideas, breaking out of the elementary teacher mindset, I suppose. With that, it seems that this course is already meeting its objective for me. Thanks for bearing with me as I begin to connect the dots…