This week's readings, being our first week of class, were rather expansive in scope, but lacking in depth, which is always nice when engaging with something relatively new. In their general introduction to The Rhetorical Tradition, Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg provide a useful overview of many of the ideas that have continued to influence the study of rhetoric since they were written down by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C.E., and how they have evolved throughout time.
One of the more interesting things that this text helps reveal about the history and nature of rhetoric, as we briefly discussed in class, is the way in which it's internally and culturally determined value is always in flux. Also, an idea that I think might be worthy of pursuit is the question of whether or not the way in which rhetoric's perceived usefulness, as a means to knowledge creation, throughout time reflects the way in which western epistemology has changed with time, and, from there, how this reflects the way in which the perceived connection between communication and truth change, arguably being continually constructed and deconstructed, with time and circumstance (if that makes any sense).
The first set of ideas Bizzell and Herzberg elucidate are the three types of rhetorical discourse: forensic, contending with drawing truth out of the past; deliberative, which deals with the future and primarily concerns law/legislation; and epideictic, which is intended to "strengthen shared beliefs about the present state of affairs" (3). Honestly, after class, I ended up kind of confused about the third, epideictic discourse, which we associated with eulogies, or any other situation wherein the audience is in agreement about the subject. My confusion is regarding the purpose. If rhetoric is the "art of persuasive speech" (2), then I'm not 100% sure why a preacher persuading their choir, so to speak, should count as rhetoric. That said, I might be overemphasizing the pragmatic, or prescriptive, nature of most rhetorical situations, and consequently assuming that speech has to be striving to change peoples mind, rather than solidifying previously held convictions, in order to be rhetoric. Therefore, I may need to broaden my sense of rhetoric.
I think, at first glance, an interesting distinction between lit studies and rhetoric is the acceptance of authorial intent/purpose. To the extent that lit-studies can be thought of as a reader's guide to both literature and perceiving the world, I think rhetoric can be seen as a speaker/writer's guide to arguing, and creating meaning/knowledge in the world. In this way, I think the two are quite the pair, and, together, are more capable of creating a comprehensive sense of epistemological truth, than they are alone. Rhetoric, the 5 canons in particular, seems to concern itself with the work rhetoricians put into constructing an argument, up until it reaches the audience, while lit theory contends almost entirely with the meaning created from a text, in whatever mode it takes, by the audience. Rhetoric is mostly brand new to me, so I might be entirely incorrect in my assertions, but I do think there is an interesting comparison to be made.
As somewhat of a side note regarding the 5 canons, I find it interesting that Aristotle, like Plato, has a harsh view of emotion, and therefore the second canon, arrangement. It might simply be a sort of personal irritation I have with classical western philosophy in general, but I find the binary created between logic and emotion troubling. I'd argue, if nothing else, emotion certainly affects the in which we receive knowledge. Emotional reactions, I think, are often better at revealing inherent truths about our nature, and are more consistently honest, instinctively, than speech typically is. I'd argue where objectivity is essential to "T"ruth, emotion is essential to "t"ruth (I often think of these as accuracy vs. honesty thanks to the 1/2 chapter of A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters by Julian Barnes)
Lastly, I'd like to end with a favorite quote, just because I think it is hilarious and wonderful all at the same time, and it is aptly placed within the paragraph titled style: "The sensual power of word magic to create belief was perhaps most potently felt while rhetoric was still employed largely in oral genres" (7). I apologize to my readers ahead of time for the fact that I don't think this blog post is in accordance with the linear progression a logical argument is supposed to have, according to the western sense of what logic is. Thank you for reading!
Work Cited
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Second ed., Bedford/St. Martins, 1990.
Comments