Spanish Scripts Colonize the Image

The most frustrating element of this article, "Spanish Scripts Colonize the Image: Inca Visual Rhetorics," was the lack of visuals, when the topic of the article itself was visual rhetorics. While reading about the quipus and tocapus, I had to find images of them online to get a better understanding of what the author was referring to. After looking at the photographs, I had a better understanding of how these could be used as systems of communication and record keeping. I have included the pictures I found below:

Tocapus

Quipus

There were several parts of this article that could have been better understood through the use of visuals. For example, the explanation and analysis of Guaman Poma's visual text would have been improved with the inclusion of pictures. The text description was well-written, but I still had a part time picturing the visual text. I was also confused about the use of text in combination with the visual text or if it was strictly visual with only titles in text. Photographs would have resolved this confusion and made the author's points easier to understand.

Despite this frustration, I enjoyed reading this article because it explored elements of rhetoric we have not yet considered in class. Like other articles we have read, it explores how native people respond rhetorically to Europeans entering their land and lives. The author refers to the interaction as the "contact zone." Within the "contact zone" there can be many different interpretations of the same text. In the "contact zone" different communication systems are used together, such as the European alphabet and the Andean icons.

I thought the discussion of the introduction of the European alphabet to the Incans was interesting. Since they already had their own ways of communication and record keeping in place, it was surprising for me to read that they were able to incorporate the alphabet into their system as well. I can't image being presented with an entire new language today and having to learn how to use it in combination with our current language. The Incans interpreted the alphabet visually rather than phonologically. This interpretation makes sense because they did not understand the European sounds. Using the alphabet visually is an intelligent interpretation that I have never considered because I was raised with the Western education of associating a sound with each letter.

In the discussion of Incans visual rhetoric, I noticed elements of Western rhetoric that we have previously studied. The author states, "The main characteristic of the visual event may be found in its condition of an effect on the individual's actions" (pg. 44). This main characteristic of visual rhetoric is very similar to the goal of rhetorics that we have previously studied. This goal is persuasion, which can be achieved only through influencing others. I also noticed an appeal to ethos in the discussion of tocapu. The author states, "Such tocapu designed stress him not only as a valiant warrior but also as a noble one" (pg. 57). Here, we see the visual text (tocapu) being used to display the individual's good character and credibility.

I also noticed the discussion of silence as a rhetorical strategy in this article. The author discusses how images are commonly combined with sound in visual rhetorics. He argues that hybrid communications like this, and those that combine images and texts are particularly effective. This led me to wonder what is more effective, combinations of sound/image/text or one element alone? In this case of this article, I think it would have been more effective as a hybrid with text and images. However, it seems as though Guaman Poma's visuals were effective on their own. In some cases, visuals can be a kind of silent rhetoric. The protesting images of bodies wrapped in plastic wrap that we discussed in class is one example of silent visuals that were particularly effective. Consider an art gallery, are the paintings silent when they hang on a wall without text descriptions?

Questions:

1. Is a combination of elements (images/text/sounds) more effective than one element alone? When is one element alone most effective?

2. Are visuals a kind of silent rhetoric? Why or why not?

3. How would you respond to a new language if it was introduced to you today?

Rhetorics of the Americas

The first three chapters of Rhetorics of the Americas shed new light on our discussion of non-western rhetoric. In the introduction, “te-ixtli: The ‘Other Face’ of the Americas,” we are introduced to the idea that colonization in the past has had a large impact on rhetoric. It is apparent that the European-American influence has affected the language and communication of all people. In light of this influence, it is interesting to consider what effective rhetoric is for other cultures? A similar question is raised in the introduction stating, how do indigenous writers and authors respond to Western expansion? The book serves the purpose of bringing together different histories and theories of rhetoric to provide a new understanding and history of how the different theories have worked together and competed against one another.

After reading this first chapter, I was left wondering what has been left out of the traditional Western teachings of rhetoric? What have we discovered that was left out? And what are we still missing? This book looks towards the “other faces” to explore aspects of non-western rhetoric and help to uncover aspects that are traditionally overlooked. An important point was brought to my attention about what is missing from Western rhetoric. Western rhetoric divides persuasive speech into three categories, forensic, epideictic, and deliberative. However, the first chapter makes the point that all communication is rhetorical. Rhetorical communication is not limited to these three types of speech, although it was the heart of rhetoric in ancient Athens. Just as we now know rhetoric is inherent in all communication, we also know that we must look outside of traditional Western teachings to see it at play in other aspects of life.

The second chapter, written by Victor Villanueva, presents the difficult reality that Europeans were harsh conquerors of the Taínos, commonly known as Indians. Christopher Columbus and the Europeans who followed him enslaved, kidnapped, and killed the native people in what became America. However, their memory remains in many aspects of our lives today. Their language and culture remains in our roots. Villanueva uses stories once again as a rhetorical strategy in this chapter to exemplify his points, raise awareness, and provide emotional appeals. I found it very interesting to learn that day-to-day aspects of our life such as baseball, tobacco, potatoes, canoes, and hammocks all came from the Taínos. Although there was not a lot of information about their rhetoric, it was interesting to read that they valued the valiant, noble, and good very highly. Throughout the semester we have seen the idea of virtuous speakers being the most valued in several different cultures. Confucius valued rhetoricians whose actions spoke louder than words, Cicero valued the good man who could speak well, the Egyptians valued those who spoke truthfully, and Plato thought that one could become closer to God through virtue.

The third chapter, “Imperialist Rhetorics in Puerto Rican Nationalist Narratives,” reminds us how closely connected religion and rhetoric have been throughout history. As a Catholic, I was most interested by the comparison of the creation story to the patterns of colonialism. I have grown up with the creation story serving as an important lesson to avoid temptation. I had certainly never considered it to connect to the brutal colonization of people. The parallelism explains that the colonial state is the creator in the story, the conqueror is Adam, and the serpent represents those who resist the power of the creator/colonizer. The whole story acts as a metaphor and has a powerful rhetorical effect. Here again, we see the use of stories to make persuasive arguments and provide new ways of looking at issues.

Questions:

1.     We agreed in class earlier that stories could be used in academic settings, do you still agree after reading these first three chapters? What stories were most effective in this reading?

2.     Do you agree that the creation story could symbolization colonization?

3.     What do you think is still missing from studies of rhetoric today?

Confucius

I appreciated the use of mixed research methods by Huiling Ding in the article, “Confucius’s Virtue-Centered Rhetoric: A Case Study of Mixed Research Methods in Comparative Rhetoric.” He mentions that it is important to understand the context of individual rhetorical situations before you place them in them into larger pictures. I think this is especially important in comparative rhetoric because it helps rhetoricians understand the value of other kinds of rhetoric on their own, not just in comparison to Western rhetoric. His methods and explanations of those methods made me realize that my blog last week was not the best because it was a back and forth comparison between Western rhetoric and Egyptian rhetoric. Although this helped me organize information in my mind, it did not consider Egyptian rhetoric completely on its own before I placed it in the bigger picture.

The development of rhetoric in China occurred as government officials communicated with the people. It was not the same kind of oral culture that the Greeks had because China did not have a public forum for debate. This lack of a public forum reminded me of the ignorant masses concept. Because many people were illiterate and did not participate in the decision-making processes of the government or society, they had different rhetorical goals.

Ding discusses the key words used by Confucius, yan and ren. I first thought these were similar to the canons. If they are, the canons of Chinese rhetoric would be language and virtue. I understood these to be similar to appeals to logos and appeals to ethos. By focusing on the language and message itself, the author appeals to logos (yan). By focusing on his or her own credibility and virtue, the author appeals to ethos (ren). It is apparent that ren/virtue is a key ingredient to persuasion for Confucius. His idea of virtue is similar to the idea that actions speak louder than words. However, it should be used in combination with good and truthful words to be most persuasive. This reminded me of the protests we discussed in class last week as a form of powerful persuasion. Many protests don’t need words to convince others, they can simply be a sit-in or a silent display like human bodies wrapped up like meat to represent an important message.

In my mind, I developed an equation to represent Confucius’ method to successful rhetoric:

Truthful words + Virtuous actions = True Persuasion

Because Confucius was so concerned with virtue, he is following the idea of the “good man, speaking well.” I admire this approach and agree that virtuous actions have strong rhetorical power. However, I wonder how effective Confucius’ strategies would be in modern day America. Are virtuous actions loud enough to be persuasive? Do we need powerful language in addition to them? Or in replacement of them?  

Other questions:

1.     Is the appeal to pathos important to Confucius?

2.     What other methods can we use to study rhetoric from other cultures besides using a back-and-forth comparison to Western rhetoric?

Egyptian Rhetoric

Reading about ancient Egyptian rhetoric in comparison to the Greek rhetoric we have read all semester was very interesting. Some notable differences and similarities I picked up on are listed below.

Differences:

·       The time difference – Classical Greek rhetoric began in the 5^th century, while ancient Egyptian rhetoric began in 2200 BC – 1500 BC

·       The difference between concrete examples of rhetoric and lessons about it – Greeks seemed to offer more oral examples of rhetoric and the power of speech while Egyptians have more general concepts and theories about eloquent speech

·       Egyptian lessons in rhetoric included daily behavior, ethics, etiquette and speech lessons, while Greek lessons focus mostly on speech strategies

·       The Egyptian lesson books show educational relationships between fathers and sons, rather than instructor and students in Greek rhetoric

·       The definition of Egyptian rhetoric is “the principle of fine speech.” It suggests nothing about persuasion or influencing others through language, which is the heart of Western definitions of rhetoric

·       Silence is a virtue of Egyptian rhetoric and not a practice of Western rhetoric

·       Egyptian rhetoric focuses on the ethos of a speaker without any mention of paths and logos appeals. Western rhetoric uses the rhetorical triangle to show the equal importance of ethos, pathos, and logos

·       Much of Egyptian rhetoric references God and becoming closer to Him through eloquent speech, Western rhetoric is not religious besides Plato’s attempts to reach true knowledge and the perfection that only God has

Similarities:

·       Both recognize the power of language

·       Both focus a lot of attention on the audience --- tailoring your speech to appeal to the specific crowd you are addressing

·       Both have idea of kiaros, the ideal time to speak

·       Both highly regard style in speech

·       Both use rhetoric for political purposes – to maintain order and to represent yourself

“The Prophecies of Neferti” is a great representation of Egyptian rhetoric used for political purposes. It helps maintain the political order by praising the King and describing the devastation that would occur without him. It includes emotional appeals in the descriptions of all the terrible things that could happen in the future. It uses parallel structure to organize the negative images saying, “I show you….” “I show you….” The same repetitive structure is used saying, “See, that (now) exists … See, the great one … See, they are before your eyes … See, there are great men …” This kind of repetition makes oral speeches more memorable. It reminds me of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

“The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” is a different rhetorical piece because it demonstrates a member breaking the political and social order, rather than reiterating the importance of maintaining to the order like “The Prophecies of Neferti.” The peasant’s eloquence saves him. He appeals to ethos and pathos in his speeches by first demonstrating respect for the chief steward and then speaking about his personal sorrows and suffering. Just as the article suggests, the speaker in this rhetorical situation does not follow the virtue of silence. Rather, he boldly shares his opinions about the unfair system and questions those superior to him. This story reminded me of the story that was included in the opening of Victor essay last week. Just as the peasant surprised the chief stewards with his eloquent speech, the Incan shocked the Franciscans with his speech. However, the peasant was rewarded in this story, unlike the Incans.

Questions:

1.     How does silence appear to the public today? Consider political debates, what would happen to the reputation of a candidate who was silent instead of debating back and forth?

2.     Which piece, “The Prophecies of Neferti” or “The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” did you find more rhetorically pleasing? Which was most similar to Western rhetoric?

2012 CCCC Chair's Address

I enjoyed reading Malea Powell’s address from the 2012 CCCC Convention in St. Louis. Her use of personal stories from individuals at the conference was a powerful rhetorical strategy to include the audience in the conversation, evoke emotions in the audience, and leave room for different interpretations of the messages she was presenting. She thanks everyone who contributed stories, appealing to her own ethos while doing so. By using the voices of other people to present ideas, she is not forcing her own ideas or ways of thinking onto the audience. Instead, she has arranged the stories and selected them in a calculated manner that helps to achieve her own rhetorical goals.

The message I took away from the whole piece was a message to English teachers that they must be responsible for breaking away from colonial teaching methods. It seems like the Western classical rhetorical traditions are part of the colonial language that adds to the traditional European methods of teaching and thinking. Powell is encouraging teachers to recognize all the different tools they can provide students with and all the different forms of knowledge available for them to teach. She is encouraging the exploration of different epistemologies, rather than just the Classical Greek epistemology. This idea of breaking away from colonization is called decolonization, and she believes it will improve the future of education if decolonization is made possible in the English discipline.

Another take-away message from the reading was Powell’s value of place. She encourages the audience to move away from the thinking, “I think; therefore, I am” to a new kind of thinking, “I am where I think and do.” This new way of thinking is a kind of decolonization and places a great deal of value on place rather than the individual. The introduction is largely focused on the history of St. Louis, where the conference is located. She presents surprising facts about the history of the land that I as a reader would have never known. I suspect many people in the audience felt the same way when they heard about “the largest archeological site in the United States” or the Monks Mound that is “larger at its base than the Great Pyramid of Khufu, Egypt’s largest (Hodges).”

The use of repetition was powerful in the essay. Powell repeats the lines: “Stories have an effect. They are real. They matter,” and “Take this story. It’s yours now. Do with it what you will.” Both of these repeated lines are important because they reiterate the importance and value of stories that Powell is trying to convey. I found it surprising that many of the personal stories commented on how difficult it is to include stories in academic writing, because I personally think it has a powerful effect on academic pieces and should be included more. However, I was not surprised by the many personal stories that commented on the challenge of exploring non-western kinds of rhetoric. The fact that it is difficult for them to get published or receive recognition for their work displays how powerful the Classical Greek epistemology remains today.

Questions:

1.     Do you think stories help or hinder academic writing?

2.     Do you think the arrangement or the personal stories helps Powell to reach her intended goals in this address, or is it random?

Villanueva, "On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism"

I enjoyed reading Dr. Villanueva’s essay, “On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism.” My favorite element of the essay was the inclusion of real world anecdotes and examples. He was able to make his points more effectively by providing his readers with situations and people they could identify with. Many of these anecdotes and examples appealed to pathos, making me as a reader feel emotional about instances of racism I was completely unaware of prior to this reading. For example, he shares the stories of two children covering themselves in flour to appear white, of Mexican women denied bathroom breaks during work, and of a Chinese man shot dead because the police feared he might fight back with martial arts.

There were also several appeals to logos in the use of statistics to represent disproportion. Through the use of numbers, Villanueva shows how people of color appear less in academic journals than whites, are often poorer than whites, and do not achieve higher education as often as whites. He also looks specifically at his own academic field, noting that 92% of CCCC members are white.

Villanueva appeals to ethos by sharing personal stories as well. He describes his encounter with the principal at his daughter’s school who claimed he had solved the racism problem at the school. He also shares his story of having publications turned down by journal editors because his work addressed issues they were unwilling to cover. The combination of his appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos makes this a well-written piece with a strong message that racism is engrained in our society’s structure. We must recognize that and become more open to lessons that do not originate from the traditional European thinkers.

I think the two stories in the opening of the essay were included to help make the argument that there is value in other cultures besides Western culture. While Villanueva comments on his appreciation and admiration of classical Western rhetoricians such as Aristotle and Cicero, he is calling us to search for others outside this Western boundary. He is perhaps suggesting that the classical Western rhetoricians have added to the racism of our world because they are part of the structure that has been built into our upbringing. Perhaps, if we studied other kinds of rhetoric besides Western, we would help break the structure of focusing on European ways of thinking.

Questions:

1.     What example/anecdote did you find most moving in the essay? What emotions did it make you feel?

2.     Do you agree that by studying only the classical Western rhetoricians we are adding to the structure of racism? 

Burke: 5 Key Terms of Dramatism

In Introduction: The Five Key Terms of Dramatism, Kenneth Burke outlines the purpose of his book. The five terms are act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose, and they are used to explain why people act the way they do. In other words, Burke wants to establish a way to discuss the motivations of different people in different situations.

Even though many people complain about Burke, there are some positive aspects to his work. For one, his work is more modern and relevant to the times we are living in today than previous works we have read this semester. One particular aspect of this introduction that I appreciated was his awareness and recognition of many different backgrounds that exist among people. He explains how people will interpret situations differently because no one is exactly the same. His view is that there is no one right way to respond to a situation; there are many different right ways. Because of this understanding of the world, Burke makes rhetoric more about discussion between people and less about convincing others to discover the ultimate truth. This is a modern interpretation that differs from ancient rhetoricians, such as Plato, who believed in one ideal truth.

Burke defines Grammar as a set of principles that can be adapted to any situation. Instead of saying his Grammar is universal and general to all situations, he says it is a set of rules that can be applied to different situations after you take into account the different philosophies that are at work in the situation. He explains, “Theological, metaphysical, and juridical doctrines offer the best illustration of the concerns we place under the heading of Grammar” (xviii). I think these are important doctrines to consider when analyzing rhetorical situations today because many disagreements occur on the basis of different religious beliefs and moral upbringings. For example, legalizing gay marriage is a hot topic of disagreement today, largely because of various understandings of God’s intentions for humankind.

Instead of saying that his key terms of Grammar will be crystal clear at all times, Burke says that they carry ambiguity. Yet he states, “what we want is not terms that avoid ambiguity, but terms that clearly reveal the strategic spots at which ambiguities necessarily arise” (xviii). Because of these ambiguities, transformation is possible. My understanding is that transformation is what occurs when people are persuaded one way or another after an original disagreement. In this understanding, transformation is what happens when rhetoric succeeds; when one person transforms their point of view. Establishing common ground is one effective way that allows transformation to occur. By pinpointing where places of disagreement occur, rhetoricians can more easily reach transformation as well. Many politicians attempt to do this by explaining one specific point that differs between an opposing candidate’s views and their own views, then establishing common ground between the points, and then making a case for their own specific view. Their goal in these situations is to convince voters to switch their votes to their favor (transformation).

Questions for discussion:

1.     Besides politicians attempting to reach transformation of voters, what other situations can you think of that have a goal of transformation as well?

2.     Which of the five key terms of dramatism has the most effect of a rhetorician’s success in reaching the goal of transformation?