In reading the first two chapters of ARCS, I found a lot of interesting points that were either completely new or refreshers on topics I have learned about previously.
I found it especially interesting in the text where Crowley & Hawhee (C&H) state the following:
...People who live in democracies must undertake productive argument with one another, because failure to do so can have serious consequences, ranging from inaction on important issues, such as global warming, to taking serious action such as going to war (4).
I don't know if this is something personal, or if others may feel this way, but it seems as if argument is something we all tend to avoid like the plague. Whether it is argument among friends about a political issue or argument between a couple about money problems, people have negative perceptions of arguments. This probably stems from our own bad experiences where people started yelling, feelings were hurt and people realized they were wrong or ignorant of a certain issue. It is difficult to be involved in arguments because what we may hold near and dear may be called in to question by someone else or we may realize what we thought we knew was far from accurate.
I completely agree with the authors of ARCS that argument on a grand scale or a small scale is extremely important for our society. I never considered it the way C&H state it that if we avoid disagreement ... "in the interests of preserving good manners, we risk undermining the principles on which our democratic community is based," (6). I was also impressed by the notion "...that every party to the discussion be aware that beliefs may change during the exchange and discussion of points of view," (6). Therein lays one of the issues of rhetoric, however. People stubbornly hold on to beliefs and opinions and will refuse to hear another person's opinion or argument. But if the rhetor is properly equipped, he will accomplish the point of rhetoric: to change opinions (C&H, 16). This is a powerful statement. The main point of rhetoric is to change opinions which in turn will change beliefs, this can lead to action and may start a movement and change the way a community functions.
Another topic discussed in our readings which made an impression on me was kairos. I never knew about this “other” kind of time aside from what we are all used to as chronological time. I can relate to this through my part-time career as a professional disc jockey. When I am DJ’ing, I can’t just throw on any song I feel like and expect people to dance. There is a right time for every song. It is common among disc jockeys to “save” certain songs for later in the evening when people are dancing and the mood is just right. Let’s say that these “special” songs are played all back-to-back at the very beginning of the night: sure, everyone will dance, but what about when the 10-15 songs are over? At that point, there may still be another 3-4 hours to fill and no one will dance anymore. Or let’s consider the opposite: save these songs for the end of the night. People will get bored and restless and may actually leave before these songs are ever played. Kairos is what a good DJ will take advantage of when it comes to playing certain hit songs.
This can also be applied to everyday life, not just in DJ’ing a party or in “formal” discussions. A child who has a bad report card may wait until mom and dad are settled in and relaxed before showing them their bad marks. Or a couple who is about to part ways after a first date might try to figure out kairos for a first kiss. Or kairos may come in to play in the common phrase we have all heard, “It’s now or never.”
I enjoyed reading the different concepts and topics in the first two chapters of ARCS and I look forward to the rest of the chapters. I also look forward to discussing the posts of others.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Rhetorical Communcation: Think "words plus listening."
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
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.
I am slightly intimidated because I have never formally studied rhetoric. Although, after reading the first two chapters of the book, I quickly realized that I do have more experience than I originally thought because rhetoric is everywhere! So essentially, I have more “street” experience with rhetoric as opposed to formal education on the topic. These chapters opened my eyes to how broad and diverse this topic is. I am questioning whether we intentionally incorporate rhetoric in our daily lives, or due to 21st century societal demands is rhetoric unintentionally woven within our regular routine. By day, as a teacher, I purposely include rhetoric within the classroom for various reasons. I use rhetoric when I introduce a new unit to spark excitement about a new subject that we are about to study for the next however many weeks. It also builds interest in the subject as the students think, talk, research and write about it. Rhetoric helps to generate curiosity and ultimately assists in creating higher level thinking among students. However, these chapters opened the door and I realize how much of an impact rhetoric has on my personal life as well. Rhetoric is present during dinner conversations with my family and friends and well as in the television shows that I watch. There were a few key points in the reading that I wanted to comment on.
As a high school teacher, I definitely agree with the author’s claim that “opinion as identity stands in the way of rhetoric exchange” (5). Many teenagers (as well as adults) are egocentric and quick to judge others. They are not willing to be open minded enough to listen and absorb a differing opinion, which destroys an intelligent rhetoric exchange. On the other hand, I absolutely agree with the statement that the author makes in regards to how people change their opinion when they lose respect for someone with that opinion or they change it when they meet someone that they respect with a different opinion. I teach in a rural school district in a very conservative county. However, one of the civics teachers, who is well respected among the students, is quite liberal and often expresses his personal beliefs to his classes. After having this teacher, I am shocked by how many students who grew up in conservative households wanted to register as a democrat. Gaining respect can be quite a valuable persuasion tool.
I also found the information on kairos in Chapter 2 incredibly interesting, especially the arguments and interests section. After reading Ted Nugent’s article I was quickly reminded of a local incident that rocked the community and school where I teach. Last year the brother of a student of mine broke into a beer distributor. The owner, who lives next door, arrived on the scene and shot the intruder dead. Before all of the evidence was revealed, the community was divided on whether or not the owner was protecting his business or if he was taking the law in his own hands. The intruder’s brother was very upset because he felt that the media was portraying his brother as a monster.
Overall, I feel that these chapters established the role that rhetoric plays in our daily lives, both professionally and personally. Its involvement varies from positive to negative; however, whether you like it or not rhetoric has sustained since ancient times and I do not foresee it is going anywhere.
As a high school teacher, I definitely agree with the author’s claim that “opinion as identity stands in the way of rhetoric exchange” (5). Many teenagers (as well as adults) are egocentric and quick to judge others. They are not willing to be open minded enough to listen and absorb a differing opinion, which destroys an intelligent rhetoric exchange. On the other hand, I absolutely agree with the statement that the author makes in regards to how people change their opinion when they lose respect for someone with that opinion or they change it when they meet someone that they respect with a different opinion. I teach in a rural school district in a very conservative county. However, one of the civics teachers, who is well respected among the students, is quite liberal and often expresses his personal beliefs to his classes. After having this teacher, I am shocked by how many students who grew up in conservative households wanted to register as a democrat. Gaining respect can be quite a valuable persuasion tool.
I also found the information on kairos in Chapter 2 incredibly interesting, especially the arguments and interests section. After reading Ted Nugent’s article I was quickly reminded of a local incident that rocked the community and school where I teach. Last year the brother of a student of mine broke into a beer distributor. The owner, who lives next door, arrived on the scene and shot the intruder dead. Before all of the evidence was revealed, the community was divided on whether or not the owner was protecting his business or if he was taking the law in his own hands. The intruder’s brother was very upset because he felt that the media was portraying his brother as a monster.
Overall, I feel that these chapters established the role that rhetoric plays in our daily lives, both professionally and personally. Its involvement varies from positive to negative; however, whether you like it or not rhetoric has sustained since ancient times and I do not foresee it is going anywhere.
Rhetoric Blog 1
I found two specific ideas proposed by the authors in the first two chapters the most compelling and inspiring.
The first one is that rhetoric is the art of being better citizens and that it is a way of strengthening democracy. Crowley and Hawhee affirm on the first chapter that in ancient Athens and Rome “the study of rhetoric was equivalent to the study of citizenship” (1); and later on, they say “In this book (…) we aim to help our [readers] become better citizens” (7). Additionally, on page six they state that they are concerned with the fact that people are ignoring the reality of disagreement and that this tendency to keep silent diminishes the quality of democracy.
For me, these two statements give a lot of sense to taking the effort to study rhetoric. On the one hand, it makes it current, pertinent, and important to our daily lives. On the other, it takes away that malicious idea of rhetoric as a tool only used to satisfy the interests of a certain group or a specific person.
I really thought that rhetoric was only used to convince another of my point of view. I was taught it was a way of persuading us to consume without limits, or used by politicians to brain wash our minds and make us vote for them. I wasn’t aware that, instead, it can be used with a noble objective such as achieving agreement to benefit the common good. Understanding and learning how ancients really thought helped me see rhetoric in a different way, in a way that is more exciting and motivating.
The second concept that drew my attention was the power of language. I found very interesting the fact that ancient people didn’t think of language as the representation of thought. The authors affirm that “ancient rhetoricians were not so sure that words only or simply represented thoughts.” (22). Instead, they believed that it had the power to persuading and moving to action. (23).
I can’t help thinking about what a teacher once taught me about the ancient thought. It was in the middle of the course called History of Philosophy. We were studying the classics and reading the Iliad and the Odyssey. He sustained that before writing appeared, Greeks believed that words had the power to create. At that time the Iliad and the Odyssey were only tales, part of the oral tradition of the people. Since there was no writing, people didn’t associate the stories to books or symbols. Instead, they believed that the story itself, while being told, was creating those events. For them, language created the reality of Achilles’ and Ulysses’ adventures. This makes me think a lot about the power that language has in our lives and how aware we need to be to really use it for our own good.
All in all, the text book made me think that rhetoric can help us be better members of our communities. It can accomplish that by giving us the tools to deal with disagreement in a peaceful way and allowing us to accept it as inevitably. Moreover, it reminded me that we, as citizens, have the power to create the society in which we would like to live in.
The first one is that rhetoric is the art of being better citizens and that it is a way of strengthening democracy. Crowley and Hawhee affirm on the first chapter that in ancient Athens and Rome “the study of rhetoric was equivalent to the study of citizenship” (1); and later on, they say “In this book (…) we aim to help our [readers] become better citizens” (7). Additionally, on page six they state that they are concerned with the fact that people are ignoring the reality of disagreement and that this tendency to keep silent diminishes the quality of democracy.
For me, these two statements give a lot of sense to taking the effort to study rhetoric. On the one hand, it makes it current, pertinent, and important to our daily lives. On the other, it takes away that malicious idea of rhetoric as a tool only used to satisfy the interests of a certain group or a specific person.
I really thought that rhetoric was only used to convince another of my point of view. I was taught it was a way of persuading us to consume without limits, or used by politicians to brain wash our minds and make us vote for them. I wasn’t aware that, instead, it can be used with a noble objective such as achieving agreement to benefit the common good. Understanding and learning how ancients really thought helped me see rhetoric in a different way, in a way that is more exciting and motivating.
The second concept that drew my attention was the power of language. I found very interesting the fact that ancient people didn’t think of language as the representation of thought. The authors affirm that “ancient rhetoricians were not so sure that words only or simply represented thoughts.” (22). Instead, they believed that it had the power to persuading and moving to action. (23).
I can’t help thinking about what a teacher once taught me about the ancient thought. It was in the middle of the course called History of Philosophy. We were studying the classics and reading the Iliad and the Odyssey. He sustained that before writing appeared, Greeks believed that words had the power to create. At that time the Iliad and the Odyssey were only tales, part of the oral tradition of the people. Since there was no writing, people didn’t associate the stories to books or symbols. Instead, they believed that the story itself, while being told, was creating those events. For them, language created the reality of Achilles’ and Ulysses’ adventures. This makes me think a lot about the power that language has in our lives and how aware we need to be to really use it for our own good.
All in all, the text book made me think that rhetoric can help us be better members of our communities. It can accomplish that by giving us the tools to deal with disagreement in a peaceful way and allowing us to accept it as inevitably. Moreover, it reminded me that we, as citizens, have the power to create the society in which we would like to live in.
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
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…
Chapter 1 Reading
I couldn’t think of an effective way to organize my thoughts, I hope that and list of key point is okay.
There were a few lines from the reading that I copied down for further reflection. Even though I’ve heard it before, the thought that “humans are the measure of all things” took on new meaning for me. I’m not sure if was that context in which it was presented, or because I was recently reading some comments made by Foucault that echoes this idea. Either way, I was drawn to the thought because I’ve been carrying it around with me for a few weeks. Later on in the reading assignment, Aristotle is quoted: “spoken words are the symbols of mental experiences and written words are the symbols of spoken words.” These two ideas are connected because so much of our daily interactions with others depends on our assumption that what we say and the way we say it will be understood by the people we interact with. This is true for both verbal and non-verbal communication (as hinted at in our reading). I was drawn to this idea similarly to the way I was drawn to the first concept. In my class this week, I presented Stephen King’s thinking that ““The most important things are the hardest things to say. They are the things you get ashamed of because words diminish your feelings - words shrink things.” Words are just symbols of what we feel and think. Thankfully, cultures have designed organized sets of these symbols to help people communicate effectively, but it’s not a perfect system. Words still have limits.
Another idea I was fascinated by was the thought that facts have no persuasive potential. The authors write that “networks of interpretation…have persuasive potential, while facts by themselves do not” (19). I disagree with the statement. Facts are more persuasive than ideology. If I am composing an argument, I always look for facts to back up my ideas. Otherwise my ideas don’t seem to carry much weight. And while my idea might be logical and influential, they will carry more weight with factual support. Consider a documentary film. Many people could make an entertaining documentary if they weren’t concerned with finding the facts about their topic. They could present only their thoughts and they might even be able to persuade people to feel a certain way. However, if one of the viewers is knowledgeable about the documentary’s topic, the viewer will be monitoring if the filmmaker “got his facts straight.” This isn’t the best example I could use to illustrate my argument, but it’ll have to do. Facts have persuasive potential.
The author’s introduction of the network of interpretation on page eleven is effective. One of the things I like about Crowley and Hawhee’s text is their use of modern examples. Within the opening chapter, they reference Jon Stewart, Sheryl Crow, Hillary Clinton, the NFL, and the Simpsons. I’m not a fan of all those people/things, but I think it’s an effective strategy. Using popular culture to describe ancient concepts makes the reading lively… back to the network of interpretation. It’s true that “facts of the physical world don’t mean much to anybody unless they are involved in some larger network…” (11). The example of the NFL’s rules is a great representation of this idea. I’ve never given much thought to how absurd professional sports would be to an “outsider.” However, it also demonstrates how vital it is that communities have a way that “things work.” Without those networks, there would be complete chaos. It’s similar to the saying that “one man’s treasure is another’s trash.” I immediately think of “collectors.” Let’s use a comic book collector as an example. Within the network of other collectors, a person’s collecting could be worth thousands of dollars. To a young child or to an individual that knows nothing about comics, they collection is worth no more than the cover price (and maybe not even that much). Therefore, the words, symbols, and methods of communication and rhetoric that we use only make sense because we are part of a larger network, and all individuals who communicate and create have an awareness of this. Without an understanding of the places we exist, we would fail to thrive.
Facts/Opinions
This is a complaint heard commonly throughout society today. However, as the Crowley/Hawhee text reiterates, the onus for this alleged circumstance is nearly always placed on the reader (or rather, non-reader) instead of where it often belongs: the writer. In the discussion of the need for clarity of style in one’s writing, “if a piece of language is not clear to an audience, anyone who subscribes to this model of language must blame its author, who either had unclear thoughts or was unable to express them clearly” (24).
I found this distinctly interesting given the common English curriculum that my high school (and I am sure a great deal of other schools) currently indoctrinates. Literature, be it fiction or non-fiction, is treated with the same framework for understanding as that of a math or science textbook; many assessments are designed to test students on their ability to recall details from a certain text, or to have them regurgitate the same, common train of thought about a symbol or about the meaning of a metaphor.
If their answers to these questions do not gel with the mainstream’s understanding of the text or work (work in terms of visual text), then they are told that their understandings or perceptions of the text are incorrect, or the dreaded “…um, sort of, but no…” that is frequently uttered to students who “incorrectly” interpret a piece of literature.
We teach students that their perceptions about a work are, simply put, not good enough. Every claim that they make must be backed up with some sort of evidence from the source. (I apparently have graduated from this same school of thought, since as I write this, I look for numerous sources from the text to confirm my relevance and accuracy.)
So then, what are Crowley/Hawhee saying about facts versus opinions? The authors point out that “Aristotle wrote that facts and testimony were not truly within the art of rhetoric; they were atechnoi –“without art or skill” (12). Is the art of rhetoric different than the systematic approaches to rhetoric to which much of the text refers? Even the foundational element, invention “requires systematic thought, practice and above all thoroughness” to become adept (15). The changing of one’s opinion can be done “by means of a systematic examination of the available positions on an issue” (18). If rhetoric has proven strategies that work, would not these strategies be in a similar category to that of facts? If rhetoric is a science, rather than an art (as we had previously touched on) is there a right or wrong answer to it, or a right or wrong way to be rhetorical?
I cannot help but feel some of the frustrations that my students must feel when they are asked to find the correct answer to the symbolism of the creature in Frankenstein. Yet, perhaps the frustration is instead the undeniable irony that I am treating this issue with the same black and white stance that mimics the model for teaching literature, of which I so frequently show disdain.
But I guess, in life—everything is an argument, even the inner discourse generated from the assigned rhetoric reading for your graduate course.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Rhetorical Smackdown
Early on in Chapter 1 of Crowley & Hawhee, the term rhetoric is defined in two ways: in how it is used in everyday discourse and what the word means in a historical context. To illustrate both the differences and similarities between the word’s two usages, an example from an episode of the political talk show Crossfire is cited. In this example, Daily Show host Jon Stewart is a guest who implores that debate, one of rhetoric’s truest forms, be the focal point of the show.
This might seem odd to some, considering Crossfire is one of the many debate-centric shows featured prominently on networks like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Stewart argues, however, that the likeness of debate put forth on shows like Crossfire is as unlike debate as professional wrestling is to athletic competition. Having grown up watching and learning about professional wrestling as a fan (I know, I know), I feel the analogy deserves some closer examination.
On the surface, pro wrestling is billed as a competition between the greatest athletes in the world. Obviously this is not the case, as all matches are predetermined and all interaction by the athletes are as choreographed as any ballet. As such, there is no competition to speak of. One would be hard-pressed to say that athleticism is not involved, however. At the risk of looking silly, I’ll provide this one example to illustrate that point.
Stewart’s analogy, as the text fleshes out, is that the theater that separates pro wrestling from legitimate athletic contests is the same that separates shows like Crossfire from actual debate. Debate, in terms of rhetoric, allows ideas to be examined with the ideologies from multiple sides with the aim of creating an understanding between them, if not resolving the dispute entirely. In shows of Crossfire’s ilk the political left and right are usually both represented by members of their corresponding party. Instead of debate, however, each side puts forth their spin on things, they cut each other off, posture and jockey for more screen time. Crowley & Hawhee state “too often opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetorical exchange.” In no place is this more prevalent than in shows like Crossfire.
In the end, nothing is ever resolved and the viewer is left to make up his or her own mind. Of course the viewer should decide for themselves where they stand on any given issue. But the discourse on display in programs like Crossfire (which the text notes was cancelled following this incident) never goes anywhere. The talk itself is all surface-level jargon and the speakers are never willing to give ground or look at things from another perspective, both of which are key in rhetorical debate. Think about it: how often do you see a program like this where one side or the other even acknowledges the other has a point, let alone that they could be wrong?
Lastly, the common viewer of these programs believes what he or she is seeing is exactly the way it happened. In this world of post-production media, that is not always the case. Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann and many others have been accused of taking video clips out of context and using them to further their own agendas. One need look no further than the Shirley Sherrod controversy to see the effect misleading editing can have. When watching, please remember the White House fired Sherrod before learning the video was edited out of context.
The media has proven to be unworthy of trust time and again. In a realm where there is no trust in the content presented, how can rhetoric even possibly take place? With the advent of opinion-as-identity running rampant in today’s mainstream media, I cannot see how it is possible.
Rhetoric old and new
In Crowley and Hawhee’s opening chapter of Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, 4e, the authors begin to outline some central differences between ancient and modern rhetoric. One of the first differences reflects the value placed on facts and testimony. While rhetors of old saw the use of language, examples and reasoning as the forces of argument, modern rhetorical practices tend to emphasize facts and testimony, perhaps because such facts have a way of stymieing further argument. They reduce the likelihood of further debate (thus preventing anyone from taking offense) and, frankly, save time and effort.
Facts, for many, suggest truth. Haven’t we all been privy to the suggestion that the facts speak for themselves or that you can’t argue the facts. Why not? As Crowley and Hawhee tell us, “Facts are statements that somebody has substantiated through experience or proved through research.” But we need only to look at a recent example to see how even the facts are not so absolute. Most of us grew up understanding that our solar system has nine planets, but when new “facts” emerged, suddenly our littlest planet was in question. What of research? Trial after trial may demonstrate that under specific conditions a particular event holds true, but it takes only one occasion where it doesn’t hold true under those conditions for the experiment to deflate.
In many ways, using facts to support a position takes the pressure off of us. And as far as time and effort, well, it’s easier to use someone else’s facts than to do our own experimentation or to spend our own time reasoning through an issue. Modern rhetoric possesses an innate sense of urgency, seeking to present an issue simply and efficiently. Why, one might pose, this need for such economy? We are a society driven by time, moving at breakneck pace. Facts are more time considerate.
A second difference between ancient and modern rhetoric that Crowley and Hawhee note is the value placed on opinion. They posit that ancient rhetors had much more regard for opinion than we do now. While I see where this perspective comes from, I believe perhaps there is more regard for opinion today than we are given credit for. It is often said that we each have a right to our opinions, understanding, I think, that these opinions are formed through our histories, our experiences-- the contexts that we bring to an idea/issue. Isn’t this similar to the ancients’ belief that opinions are community based? As well, can’t new experiences, new histories, new contexts influence our opinions and, indeed, allow them to be changed. We are not so short-sighted in modern society to deny this possibility, are we? For example, growing up in a relatively strict religious family and community, there was a very clear sense of what was right and what was wrong. These beliefs remained intact as long as one remained a member of this community. The distancing of myself from this community when I moved away to college allowed me to be part of a newly formed community, one made up of other individuals who, too, had come from separate communities where opinions on issues were very different from the ones that were part of my experience/history. Exposure to these new opinions, and the reasoning and support for them, allowed me to adjust my own opinions, to develop my own ideologies, and come to my own conclusions.
At the same time, this maxim that entitles one to his opinion (a by-product perhaps of our society’s sense of self-importance), like our reliance on facts, can stop an argument in its tracks. No one wants to step on another ‘s toes or offend, so we just agree to have our own opinions; we agree to disagree, offering little chance for the discussion to persist.
Ancient and modern rhetoric differ too in how they view the rhetorical occasion. The authors imply that modern rhetors tend to view the rhetorical situation as something static, thus following the same approach despite the differences in the issue and the time and place in which it occurs. From my own experiences with various composition texts, this seems an apt observation. Young students of writing are provided a formula into which their ideas can be systematically placed. That formula consists of the introduction that concludes with the thesis, three supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion that restates (often with the same wording as the introduction) the thesis. How many times have I had a student, upon receiving a writing assignment, ask if the assignment should be five paragraphs. After a few moments of skull-cracking thumps with my head against the white board, I am forced to explain, once again, that the topics demand more complex thinking, that there are more than 3 important to points to be made about most subjects and that new ideas connected to this subject exist in the deep recesses of their brains, if only they’ll take the time to dig them out.
Dare I suggest that mandated testing has sustained this approach to writing. Sometimes, I fear, the actual thoughts, the content, the demonstration of critical thought are all overlooked in preference for the ability to fit the given structure. As this pattern becomes habit, it becomes ever more difficult to break a student out of this formulaic mode. And let’s face it, it is both easier to write and easier to read discourse when the formula is adhered to. Again, simple and efficient is the name of the game.
Logic would tell us that while commonalities may exist from situation to situation, topic to topic, even subtle nuances render each unique and deserving of independent consideration and, quite often, worthy of more than a five paragraph essay, a display of “rhetoric” that would likely have the ancients rolling in their graves.
Finally, Crowley and Hawhee set ancient rhetors’ beliefs about the power of language against modern rhetors’ reduction of language to a listing of facts, and the differences between the two come full circle. We are back to the beginning where today’s society recognizes facts as the method for advancing thought, a neat, tidy substitute when the demands of our time prevent us from becoming well versed about the issues important to us.
Whether these differences between ancient and modern rhetoric are as pronounced as has been suggested, what does seem clear is that the practice of rhetoric, particularly from the argumentative stance, is in decline. The authors demonstrate this belief as well, citing Jon Stewart’s attempt to debate the state of argument today. Crowley and Hawhee purport that rhetoric is meant to function as a way to disagree with civility, something becoming rare in modern-day debate situations, especially when aired publicly, as is pointed out via Stewart’s analogy likening debate to the theatrical domain of the WWE. A sensationalist media perpetrates this form of argument as it has become lucrative to do so.
In June 2004, a few months prior to Stewart’s denunciations on Crossfire, John Leo, too, bemoaned the inability of modern rhetors to appreciate both the practice of and need for argument in society in his article “The Beauty of Argument ” found in a June 13, 2004, online posting of US News and World Report (reprinted elsewhere with the title “Let’s Keep Arguing”). Like Stewart, Leo references a shift that has taken place in this century alone in the value of rhetoric. He says, “In the old days, William F. Buckley Jr. would hold public debates with all comers (I recall Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Steve Allen), then go out to a pleasant dinner with his opponent. Nowadays Buckley or his adversary would probably be required to take umbrage, hurl some insult, then stomp out in a snit.” Leo even admits to once being chastised by a TV producer for not interrupting other speakers more during a televised debate program. Leo also identifies modern society’s fear of offending as a barrier to argument as it was intended to be by our earlier rhetoric champions. When he spoke about “repressive speech codes, stolen newspapers, canceled speakers;…defunded Christian groups; the distortion of the curriculum by powerful diversity bureaucracies...,” at a speech he gave, one former university professor in the audience got up and walked out, but not before “denouncing [Leo’s] comments as ‘the most intellectually dishonest speech [he had] ever heard.’ As Leo suggests, “I think he meant to say he disagreed.” Yet the man did not stay to delve into why he disagreed and, in doing so, missed an opportunity (kairos) to promote greater discussion and perhaps deeper insights into the issue.
In order to advance thoughts and reason through issues to arrive at the best and most acceptable result an open-mindedness and a willingness to share our opinions must be present. It seems the ancient rhetors understood this.
Yes, disagreement can be uncomfortable and perhaps even a little embarrassing when we feel caught without a logical or reasonable response, but disagreement is the key to a better, more productive response to the needs of an ever-changing society.
Facts, for many, suggest truth. Haven’t we all been privy to the suggestion that the facts speak for themselves or that you can’t argue the facts. Why not? As Crowley and Hawhee tell us, “Facts are statements that somebody has substantiated through experience or proved through research.” But we need only to look at a recent example to see how even the facts are not so absolute. Most of us grew up understanding that our solar system has nine planets, but when new “facts” emerged, suddenly our littlest planet was in question. What of research? Trial after trial may demonstrate that under specific conditions a particular event holds true, but it takes only one occasion where it doesn’t hold true under those conditions for the experiment to deflate.
In many ways, using facts to support a position takes the pressure off of us. And as far as time and effort, well, it’s easier to use someone else’s facts than to do our own experimentation or to spend our own time reasoning through an issue. Modern rhetoric possesses an innate sense of urgency, seeking to present an issue simply and efficiently. Why, one might pose, this need for such economy? We are a society driven by time, moving at breakneck pace. Facts are more time considerate.
A second difference between ancient and modern rhetoric that Crowley and Hawhee note is the value placed on opinion. They posit that ancient rhetors had much more regard for opinion than we do now. While I see where this perspective comes from, I believe perhaps there is more regard for opinion today than we are given credit for. It is often said that we each have a right to our opinions, understanding, I think, that these opinions are formed through our histories, our experiences-- the contexts that we bring to an idea/issue. Isn’t this similar to the ancients’ belief that opinions are community based? As well, can’t new experiences, new histories, new contexts influence our opinions and, indeed, allow them to be changed. We are not so short-sighted in modern society to deny this possibility, are we? For example, growing up in a relatively strict religious family and community, there was a very clear sense of what was right and what was wrong. These beliefs remained intact as long as one remained a member of this community. The distancing of myself from this community when I moved away to college allowed me to be part of a newly formed community, one made up of other individuals who, too, had come from separate communities where opinions on issues were very different from the ones that were part of my experience/history. Exposure to these new opinions, and the reasoning and support for them, allowed me to adjust my own opinions, to develop my own ideologies, and come to my own conclusions.
At the same time, this maxim that entitles one to his opinion (a by-product perhaps of our society’s sense of self-importance), like our reliance on facts, can stop an argument in its tracks. No one wants to step on another ‘s toes or offend, so we just agree to have our own opinions; we agree to disagree, offering little chance for the discussion to persist.
Ancient and modern rhetoric differ too in how they view the rhetorical occasion. The authors imply that modern rhetors tend to view the rhetorical situation as something static, thus following the same approach despite the differences in the issue and the time and place in which it occurs. From my own experiences with various composition texts, this seems an apt observation. Young students of writing are provided a formula into which their ideas can be systematically placed. That formula consists of the introduction that concludes with the thesis, three supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion that restates (often with the same wording as the introduction) the thesis. How many times have I had a student, upon receiving a writing assignment, ask if the assignment should be five paragraphs. After a few moments of skull-cracking thumps with my head against the white board, I am forced to explain, once again, that the topics demand more complex thinking, that there are more than 3 important to points to be made about most subjects and that new ideas connected to this subject exist in the deep recesses of their brains, if only they’ll take the time to dig them out.
Dare I suggest that mandated testing has sustained this approach to writing. Sometimes, I fear, the actual thoughts, the content, the demonstration of critical thought are all overlooked in preference for the ability to fit the given structure. As this pattern becomes habit, it becomes ever more difficult to break a student out of this formulaic mode. And let’s face it, it is both easier to write and easier to read discourse when the formula is adhered to. Again, simple and efficient is the name of the game.
Logic would tell us that while commonalities may exist from situation to situation, topic to topic, even subtle nuances render each unique and deserving of independent consideration and, quite often, worthy of more than a five paragraph essay, a display of “rhetoric” that would likely have the ancients rolling in their graves.
Finally, Crowley and Hawhee set ancient rhetors’ beliefs about the power of language against modern rhetors’ reduction of language to a listing of facts, and the differences between the two come full circle. We are back to the beginning where today’s society recognizes facts as the method for advancing thought, a neat, tidy substitute when the demands of our time prevent us from becoming well versed about the issues important to us.
Whether these differences between ancient and modern rhetoric are as pronounced as has been suggested, what does seem clear is that the practice of rhetoric, particularly from the argumentative stance, is in decline. The authors demonstrate this belief as well, citing Jon Stewart’s attempt to debate the state of argument today. Crowley and Hawhee purport that rhetoric is meant to function as a way to disagree with civility, something becoming rare in modern-day debate situations, especially when aired publicly, as is pointed out via Stewart’s analogy likening debate to the theatrical domain of the WWE. A sensationalist media perpetrates this form of argument as it has become lucrative to do so.
In June 2004, a few months prior to Stewart’s denunciations on Crossfire, John Leo, too, bemoaned the inability of modern rhetors to appreciate both the practice of and need for argument in society in his article “The Beauty of Argument ” found in a June 13, 2004, online posting of US News and World Report (reprinted elsewhere with the title “Let’s Keep Arguing”). Like Stewart, Leo references a shift that has taken place in this century alone in the value of rhetoric. He says, “In the old days, William F. Buckley Jr. would hold public debates with all comers (I recall Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Steve Allen), then go out to a pleasant dinner with his opponent. Nowadays Buckley or his adversary would probably be required to take umbrage, hurl some insult, then stomp out in a snit.” Leo even admits to once being chastised by a TV producer for not interrupting other speakers more during a televised debate program. Leo also identifies modern society’s fear of offending as a barrier to argument as it was intended to be by our earlier rhetoric champions. When he spoke about “repressive speech codes, stolen newspapers, canceled speakers;…defunded Christian groups; the distortion of the curriculum by powerful diversity bureaucracies...,” at a speech he gave, one former university professor in the audience got up and walked out, but not before “denouncing [Leo’s] comments as ‘the most intellectually dishonest speech [he had] ever heard.’ As Leo suggests, “I think he meant to say he disagreed.” Yet the man did not stay to delve into why he disagreed and, in doing so, missed an opportunity (kairos) to promote greater discussion and perhaps deeper insights into the issue.
In order to advance thoughts and reason through issues to arrive at the best and most acceptable result an open-mindedness and a willingness to share our opinions must be present. It seems the ancient rhetors understood this.
Yes, disagreement can be uncomfortable and perhaps even a little embarrassing when we feel caught without a logical or reasonable response, but disagreement is the key to a better, more productive response to the needs of an ever-changing society.
Shaded by Labels
In today’s society, labels are everywhere. At times, a person feels as if he or she cannot even turn a corner without being bombarded with labels. Labels are encouraged by society and people strictly adhere to those labels in order to live their lives. Labels place people of similar situations or backgrounds into a box and this collective box group than performs according to the box’s specification. One place in particular that thrives on labels is that of academic settings. Everyone knows that students are labeled and placed into certain appropriate class groups based on their intellectual similarities. We have the AP level students, the Honor students, the Academic students and the General students. Most teachers, students and even parents are content with following the specific course that each labeled group is given. This idea of scholastic labeling derives from the nineteenth-century and the dreaded Harvard Influence, which devalued both writing and “rhetoric” (A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition 4). After reading this week’s assignment, I was amazed to discover the larger role that labels (bias) play in rhetoric and how various labels affect rhetoric. In this blog, I will try to examine this thought.
The one major example of labeling is that of one person belonging to this group or that group. In chapter one, Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee talk about this first instance. They write that “Americans tend to link a person’s opinion to her [his] identity. We assume that someone’s opinions result form her personal experience, and hence that those opinions are somehow ‘hers’- that she alone ‘owns’ them” (Crowley and Hawhee 5). In this common example, both educators point out that people are quick to label a person based on their assumed or known association with a particular (religious, political, educational, socioeconomic, etc) group. In the text, both authors mention that “too often opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetoric exchange…this habit of tying beliefs to an identity also has the unfortunate effect of allowing people who hold a distinctive set of beliefs to belittle or mistreat people who do not share those beliefs” (5). This negative label is able to stop communication and the expression of another perspective from occurring. We all have different feelings, thoughts and life lessons that have fashioned our perspective and yet, often times, people are unable to join in mainline discussions because they have been mislabeled and branded incompetent in certain matters. When I taught high school, I was given mostly the general and academic students. All summer long, I heard about how I was going to be teaching all the “monsters” and “dumb apples” and many hoped that after my first year, I would be able to balance my life with more “advanced, sincere and intelligent” students and classes. I decided to let my students tell me who they were and not their label. Some of my colleagues were amazed that the students were improving academically and many marveled that I dare assign homework, essay midterms and finals and a variety of projects and papers. All of my students were capable, they were just looking for someone to allow them to ditch their labels and see them for the scholars and thinkers they were. Just like the football analogy, in which “instant replay” is just as faulty as referees, so too are class labels and teachers comment reports which seem to cause one student to be judged a scholar and another a “waste of time” (11). After all, “there is [never] only one way to read or interpret a discourse” (25).
In closing, I want to focus briefly on how kairos is affected by labels. In the second chapter, both authors state that “kairos requires that rhetors view writing and speaking as opportunities for exploring issues and making knowledge” (48). As teachers, we are called to invite our students into the academic dialogue which empowers them to discover their own voice, perspectives and ideals on various situations. Thanks in part to the Harvard Influence, which belittled the student’s mind, and forced only one perspective into the classroom, many students are fearful or anxious to express their voice, perspective or argument. I really like this book, because it is calling for a broader American classroom that does not inhibit its students’ growth but nurtures it. Watched a great movie last weekend, The Great Debaters and I thought it was dynamic. It really showed how the students were taught to look at a topic and to clearly see all the viewpoints associated with it.
Questions:
1.)My undergraduate background is history and literature. Every semester, we had to discuss the reasons why Ancient civilizations (Greece, Rome) fell. We always talked about the historical and economic reasons but we never discussed any of the social or educational aspects of those civilizations and how they impacted the gradual decline of those civilizations. After reading this week’s assignment, my thoughts were centered on this one question: Was rhetoric oppressed and neglected in these earlier societies and did it attribute to their decline?
2.)What does the term “civilization” really mean? Is there any real example of it? Is civilization supposed to encourage rhetoric or not? Does civilization aid in the production of labels and/or do those labels negatively or positively affect rhetoric?
The one major example of labeling is that of one person belonging to this group or that group. In chapter one, Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee talk about this first instance. They write that “Americans tend to link a person’s opinion to her [his] identity. We assume that someone’s opinions result form her personal experience, and hence that those opinions are somehow ‘hers’- that she alone ‘owns’ them” (Crowley and Hawhee 5). In this common example, both educators point out that people are quick to label a person based on their assumed or known association with a particular (religious, political, educational, socioeconomic, etc) group. In the text, both authors mention that “too often opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetoric exchange…this habit of tying beliefs to an identity also has the unfortunate effect of allowing people who hold a distinctive set of beliefs to belittle or mistreat people who do not share those beliefs” (5). This negative label is able to stop communication and the expression of another perspective from occurring. We all have different feelings, thoughts and life lessons that have fashioned our perspective and yet, often times, people are unable to join in mainline discussions because they have been mislabeled and branded incompetent in certain matters. When I taught high school, I was given mostly the general and academic students. All summer long, I heard about how I was going to be teaching all the “monsters” and “dumb apples” and many hoped that after my first year, I would be able to balance my life with more “advanced, sincere and intelligent” students and classes. I decided to let my students tell me who they were and not their label. Some of my colleagues were amazed that the students were improving academically and many marveled that I dare assign homework, essay midterms and finals and a variety of projects and papers. All of my students were capable, they were just looking for someone to allow them to ditch their labels and see them for the scholars and thinkers they were. Just like the football analogy, in which “instant replay” is just as faulty as referees, so too are class labels and teachers comment reports which seem to cause one student to be judged a scholar and another a “waste of time” (11). After all, “there is [never] only one way to read or interpret a discourse” (25).
In closing, I want to focus briefly on how kairos is affected by labels. In the second chapter, both authors state that “kairos requires that rhetors view writing and speaking as opportunities for exploring issues and making knowledge” (48). As teachers, we are called to invite our students into the academic dialogue which empowers them to discover their own voice, perspectives and ideals on various situations. Thanks in part to the Harvard Influence, which belittled the student’s mind, and forced only one perspective into the classroom, many students are fearful or anxious to express their voice, perspective or argument. I really like this book, because it is calling for a broader American classroom that does not inhibit its students’ growth but nurtures it. Watched a great movie last weekend, The Great Debaters and I thought it was dynamic. It really showed how the students were taught to look at a topic and to clearly see all the viewpoints associated with it.
Questions:
1.)My undergraduate background is history and literature. Every semester, we had to discuss the reasons why Ancient civilizations (Greece, Rome) fell. We always talked about the historical and economic reasons but we never discussed any of the social or educational aspects of those civilizations and how they impacted the gradual decline of those civilizations. After reading this week’s assignment, my thoughts were centered on this one question: Was rhetoric oppressed and neglected in these earlier societies and did it attribute to their decline?
2.)What does the term “civilization” really mean? Is there any real example of it? Is civilization supposed to encourage rhetoric or not? Does civilization aid in the production of labels and/or do those labels negatively or positively affect rhetoric?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Blog 1 - ARCS Chapters 1 and 2
Having had a rhetoric course before in my undergraduate studies, I thought I had a good handle on what rhetoric is. It was my understanding of rhetoric that in order to be “rhetorical,” something must fit under one of the three categories of ethos, pathos, or logos (defined on page 13). However, I became confused about this during the reading when on page 12, the authors describe an advertisement for an MP3 player. After describing the advertisement, they write “There are no facts in this argument – indeed it is a fiction, a digitally-mastered silhouette, constructed by scriptwriters, graphic designers, directors and others – and yet it is apparently persuasive, since this type of advertisement endures.” (12)
I had to stop and think long and hard how that example could be persuasive and therefore rhetorical, and which of ethos, pathos, and logos would apply. After consideration, I decided that this could be an example of pathos because the advertisement may appeal to someone’s emotional desire to be , as the book puts it, a “sleek, fun-having person.” I then continued to think about instances when commercials and advertisements don’t have an obvious rhetorical/persuasional argument and how these could fit into the types of rhetoric described in the book chapters and the idea that “everything is rhetoric” from class last week.
I was going through different ads in my mind and came to my personal favorite ad, the Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” radio advertisements. The ads trouble me because I can’t figure out how they are persuasive. They clearly must be somehow because all advertisements are meant to persuade us to buy the product being advertised and the ads have “endured” for several years, but I tried to apply ethos, pathos, and logos to no avail. The announcer for the commercials doesn’t have any ethos because we know nothing about him. Budweiser has ethos for being a well-know beer manufacturer, but nothing to that nature is stated in the ad. The ad is somewhat logical as it describes real positions of real people, but it does so jokingly. This could appeal to pathos because it’s humorous; but I can’t find a solid reason why the add is persuasive, unless humor and entertainment are in themselves a form of rhetoric not yet covered in the text book.
Another part of the reading that confused me is that in Chapter 1, the authors state “language is not things, and language does not communicate things or thoughts or anything else. Language is not the same thing as honey or fossils or cold winds, nor is it the same as thoughts or feelings or perceptions.” (23)
While I can agree that language isn’t honey (things), I can’t agree that it “does not communicate things or thoughts or anything else.” I also fail to see the parallel between being thoughts, feelings, or perceptions that the authors seem to try to make with “communicating things or thoughts. Certainly language isn’t things or thoughts, but if language doesn’t communicate them, what does? What would the point of me writing –right this very second and or for any other reason ever – be if it didn’t communicate a thought or a feeling? Isn’t a point of rhetoric to communicate a certain thought and cause a certain feeling to persuade an audience? Without language, how could we communicate thoughts and feelings effectively, or even at all?
I had to stop and think long and hard how that example could be persuasive and therefore rhetorical, and which of ethos, pathos, and logos would apply. After consideration, I decided that this could be an example of pathos because the advertisement may appeal to someone’s emotional desire to be , as the book puts it, a “sleek, fun-having person.” I then continued to think about instances when commercials and advertisements don’t have an obvious rhetorical/persuasional argument and how these could fit into the types of rhetoric described in the book chapters and the idea that “everything is rhetoric” from class last week.
I was going through different ads in my mind and came to my personal favorite ad, the Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” radio advertisements. The ads trouble me because I can’t figure out how they are persuasive. They clearly must be somehow because all advertisements are meant to persuade us to buy the product being advertised and the ads have “endured” for several years, but I tried to apply ethos, pathos, and logos to no avail. The announcer for the commercials doesn’t have any ethos because we know nothing about him. Budweiser has ethos for being a well-know beer manufacturer, but nothing to that nature is stated in the ad. The ad is somewhat logical as it describes real positions of real people, but it does so jokingly. This could appeal to pathos because it’s humorous; but I can’t find a solid reason why the add is persuasive, unless humor and entertainment are in themselves a form of rhetoric not yet covered in the text book.
Another part of the reading that confused me is that in Chapter 1, the authors state “language is not things, and language does not communicate things or thoughts or anything else. Language is not the same thing as honey or fossils or cold winds, nor is it the same as thoughts or feelings or perceptions.” (23)
While I can agree that language isn’t honey (things), I can’t agree that it “does not communicate things or thoughts or anything else.” I also fail to see the parallel between being thoughts, feelings, or perceptions that the authors seem to try to make with “communicating things or thoughts. Certainly language isn’t things or thoughts, but if language doesn’t communicate them, what does? What would the point of me writing –right this very second and or for any other reason ever – be if it didn’t communicate a thought or a feeling? Isn’t a point of rhetoric to communicate a certain thought and cause a certain feeling to persuade an audience? Without language, how could we communicate thoughts and feelings effectively, or even at all?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)