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?

Cicero

I enjoyed this weeks reading about Cicero. He was an interesting character to read about and I gained more information about his background and personal life than I did with Aristotle, Plato, or Gorgias. I enjoyed the fact that Cicero was very involved in the Roman community between being an orator, lawyer, and having a political career. It seems as though he had a good reputation in Rome too, based on his loyal supporters. It was nice to read that he gained most of his public support because of his oratory skills rather than his noble birth. Even with the many challenges he faced as a leader, such as exile and power shifts taking place in Rome, he maintained a following of people. However, he also made enemies by displaying his speech abilities, such as Mark Antony. It was shocking that Antony’s wife pulled out Cicero’s tongue after he was beheaded and jabbed it multiple times with her hairpin. This act displays how truly fearful some people were of his oratory skills.

His background was in some ways similar to Aristotle and Plato however, because they were all of high class. Cicero was considered an elite, with a father who had made good connections for their family in Rome. Cicero was educated in both Latin and Greek, making him “cultured.” Not only was he an elite, he was a talented student. Much of his ideas about rhetoric seem to have been formed through the influence of many different rhetoricians. He makes rhetoricians out to be an elite group, like himself, by saying they have to have eloquence and knowledge in all the important subjects and arts.

However, this elite placement of rhetoric was interesting because he discusses how few men are involved in the study of rhetoric. He claims that the most men are involved in philosophy, followed by poetry, then rhetoric. This seems to be a kind of ranking between the subjects that contradicts his notion that rhetoric is the most eloquent of subjects. Placing philosophy as the highest is similar to Plato’s idea that philosophy was the most honorable subject of study. Although, Cicero was a student of Plato’s so perhaps his ideas were rubbing off on him. De Oratore is written with dialogues, which is similar to the dialectic nature of Plato’s writings. However, it is difficult to tell if there was one character that Cicero was using to speak his own ideas, like Plato used Socrates. Both Antonius and Crassus seem to have strong opinions and Cicero could be using either of these characters to speak his own opinions. In addition, Cicero shows his Platonic influence by including teachings in philosophy in his treatise on rhetoric.

Cicero differs from Gorgias because he claims that rhetoric is one of the most difficult areas of study. He thinks rhetoric is difficult because it applies to all subjects; therefore students must have knowledge in many fields. This differs from Gorgias who argued that a speaker did not need to necessarily be a master in a subject to be convincing. Because of this difference, I think Cicero considers rhetoric an art rather than flattery as Gorgias does.

Cicero also agrees with Aristotle in some ways. He mentions appeals to emotion, logic, and character (pathos, logos, and ethos). Also, he agrees with the three types of persuasive speech outlined by Aristotle: forensic, epidictic, and deliberative. One of Cicero’s biggest contributions to the study of Western rhetoric was the division of the five canons: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. These canons are important to studying how arguments are created, organized, and presented. I think Cicero’s division of the canons is similar to Aristotle’s methodical way of thinking about rhetoric.

Including memory as one of the five canons was important in Cicero’s time but is not so important today. People now have the ability to look up anything on the Internet and do not need to memorize facts or laws as Cicero’s suggests. Even though I may not specialize in a certain subject, I am confident that I could quickly find credible Internet sources about that subject matter as well as book sources from the WSU library. While we may not have to memorize as many facts today, I still think it is a valuable skill for public speakers to be able to memorize their speech and present it without hesitations. President Obama is an excellent example of a speaker who knows his material before he presents it so that he rarely appears unprepared by having to refer to his notes.

Questions for Discussion:

1.     Do you think any of the other five canons of rhetoric are less relevant today than they were in Cicero’s time?

2.     Do you agree that Cicero consider rhetoric an art?

3.     Because Cicero was educated in Latin and Greek he was considered “cultured.” What kinds of things in today’s society are required for orators to be considered “cultured?”

Aristotle pg. 164-218

In pages 164-218, Aristotle states that a speaker should focus on these three elements when writing a speech: the means of producing persuasion, the style, and the arrangement of the parts of speech. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three sources of persuasion and the degree that each appeal is used in a speech should vary depending on the subject matter and audience. Being willing to adjust the degree of appeals for the subject and audience is an important skill for rhetoricians to master. For example, Aristotle explains that bigger audiences often require more general subject matter than highly detailed, while forensic speaking requires more details, and ceremonial speaking is often literary because it is usually read (pg. 198).

While speakers previous, such as Gorgias, were all about the art of flattering an audience, Aristotle is against such a thing. He says, “we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts” (pg. 165). He thinks that an argument could work with only appeals to logos and that would be the ideal argument. However, he recognizes that the ideal is not always possible and in those cases, other appeals are necessary. He claims that usually the ideal is not possible due to “defects of our hearers” (pg. 165). Here again, we see him thinking higher of himself than the majority of the population who are the hearers of speeches.

It is clear that Aristotle recognizes the power of language. When discussing style, he talks about the great variety in it. Words can carry a great deal of meaning and range in forms. He discusses nouns, verbs, metaphors, synonyms, compound words, metaphors, similes, and epithets. I appreciated this section of the reading because I enjoy finding schemes and tropes in everyday language. The subject of metaphors (making a comparison between two unlike words) is discussed a lot by Aristotle and is often used today. Kenneth Burke included the metaphor as one of his four “master tropes.” Metaphors are often used in song lyrics and may go overlooked, yet their symbolic significance is great and often defines the meaning of songs. Some song lyrics including metaphors are:

Firework –Katy Perry

“Baby, you’re a firework. Come on, let your colors burst…”

I’m Already There - Lonestar

“I’m the sunshine in your hair, I’m the shadow on the ground, I’m the whisper in the wind, I’m your imaginary friend…”

I am the Walrus – The Beatles

“I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus…”

Aristotle gives good advice regarding ethos saying that it is important to keep your language and emotions “appropriate” (p. 178). By being appropriate, he means following certain rules for certain subjects and emotions so as not to confuse or upset your audience. For example, you should not speak causally about a serious issue. This advice remains relevant today because public leaders have received criticism for sending mixed messages to their audiences when their behaviors and demeanor do not match their words. For example, this explicit tweet from Kanye West is completely inappropriate because his words do not match the severity of the subject matter, abortions.

Kanye’s tweet:

“An abortion can cost a ballin’ n***a up to 50gs maybe a 100. Gold diggin’ b**ches be getting pregnant on purpose #STRAPUP my n****s!”

Questions for discussion:

1.     Do you agree with Aristotle that the ideal argument should include just the bare facts and their proofs?

2.     Can you think of a contemporary example where a public figure was not “appropriate” because their words did not match their emotions or actions?

3.     Besides metaphors, what other schemes and tropes do you see often in contemporary arts such as song lyrics?

Aristotle Examples

This comic is a good example of a syllogism. I have broken it down into the premises and conclusion below. It is a humorous example of how people except a conclusion based off of two related premises.

The minor premise: My birthday is next week.
The major premise: My birthday is the day before Max's birthday.
Conclusion: Max's birthday is coming up soon.

Another example of Aristotle's teachings I found relates to his idea of fear. He explains how to effectively use fear in persuading an audience by saying, "When it is advisable that the audience should be frightened, the orator must make them feel that they really are in danger of something, pointing out that it has happened to others who were stronger than they are, and is happening, or has happened, to people like themselves, at the hands of unexpected people, in an unexpected form, and at an unexpected time" (pg. 106). 

The recent news story of Ariel Castro holding women captive for years in his basement is an example of how fear is being used to persuade the public. There are numerous articles and interviews from the women he held captive all of which use fear to persuade their audience to be aware of the possible dangers around them. None of these women expected their abduction and through their public accounts of their terrifying personal experiences they are sending a very clear message that all women should be careful around strangers and be aware of the surroundings they put themselves in. 

Here is a quote from Michelle Knight, the victim who was kidnapped and held captive by Ariel Castro longest. I think this is a rhetorically powerful example of using fear to convey a message to your audience. 

"To Judge Russo:
I would like to tell you what 11 years of my life was like:
I missed my son every day.
I wondered if I was ever going to see my son again--he was only 2 1/2 when I was taken.
I would look inside my heart and see my son.
I cried every night.  I felt so alone.
I worried about what might happen to the other girls and me every day.
The days never got shorter.
The nights turned into days.
The days turned into years.
The years turned into eternity.
I knew nobody cared about me.
He told me my family didn't care about me.  He tormented me constantly, especially on holidays.
Christmas was the most traumatic day because I didn't get to spend it with my son.
No one should ever have to experience what we went through.  Not even an enemy!
Gina and I were a team.  I never let her fall and she never let me fall.  She nursed me back to health when I was dying from his abuse.  My friendship with Gina is the only good thing to come from this situation.
We said we'll all get out alive some day and we did!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/statements-behalf-amanda-berry-gina-184800732.html

Aristotle (Intro - pg.90)

Throughout the semester, we have read different works that suggest either rhetoric is an art or it is not. Aristotle supports the idea that rhetoric is an art. He believes in a method that is teachable and effectively creates a “science of rhetoric” that Plato mentioned in Phaedrus. Aristotle makes rhetoric a science by providing classifications and divisions within the subject, effective means of persuasion, and what seem to be step-by-step instructions to persuade an audience. The style of this text is much different than Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus because it is written like a lesson book. As a reader, I felt as though Aristotle distanced himself from his work more than Plato did because the tone was more educational than opinionated.

A quote in the introduction says, “It is not too much to claim that rhetoric is the art that governs those human relationships that are conducted in the medium of spoken and written words” (pg. vii). This idea reminds me of Kenneth Burke’s statement that all communication is rhetorical and we cannot escape it. If anything, these ideas have convinced me that studying rhetoric is worthwhile because it is an everyday skill that is useful in a variety of aspects. As a pre-law major, I also considered if the way laws are written is a rhetorical process, or if the laws are simply laws and the way they are defended is rhetorical.

Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (pg. 3). This definition says a lot about Aristotle’s view of rhetoric because of the phrase “available means.” I think this is most significant because it demonstrates his belief in the ability to find and use a variety of rhetorical tools. In this light, finding the means of persuasion available is a method and a strategy and that can be taught. Often times, I think people today find too many different ways to persuade an audience and end up with an argument that is completely off topic, yet still convincing. For example, politicians are known to talk circles around a question they don’t want to answer and celebrities have learned how to avoid responding directly to personal or uncomfortable questions. Regardless of them beating around the bush, both politicians and celebrities maintain large fan followings.  

Aristotle divides rhetoric into three kinds: forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. In the first half of the book, I found the discussion of forensic rhetoric appealing because I am currently working on a thesis project that is based on understanding forensic rhetoric. I am conducting a rhetorical analysis of a controversial Supreme Court case for the project. I will be using both non-artistic and artistic proofs in my thesis. Because it is based on a Supreme Court case the non-artistic proofs that Aristotle lists such as laws, witnesses, and oaths are particularly important.

Another idea we have discussed in class throughout the semester is the idea of virtue vs. pleasure and how it affects the rhetorician. Aristotle claims, “The honest rhetorician has no separate name to distinguish him from the dishonest” (pg. 3). This statement makes me believe that he thinks good rhetoricians can be dishonest as well as honest, while Plato believed honesty and truth were requirements for a good rhetorician. This idea was presented a lot in the discussion of forensic rhetoric as Aristotle explains different human motives, the differences between rational choices and irrational choices, the states of mind people have when they commit crimes, and the different kinds of wrongs. 

The use of enthymemes is a major aspect of Aristotle’s teachings. While I find enthymemes to be useful, I also think they present a lot of opportunities for dishonesty. If one of the premises is false, it is easy for an audience to ignorantly accept the conclusion. For example, an audience may believe the conclusion that the radio is a bad source of new music if the premises are one particular station plays only old music and that particular station is a radio station. Because that station may not be representative of the radio as a whole, the audience would have accepted a false premise and in turn, a untrue conclusion.

Questions for discussion:

1. Do you think enthymemes are good rhetorical device? Or are they too dangerous to use because of the possibility for false premises to be accepted?

2. Did you enjoy having fewer opinions from Aristotle and more education in his writing, or do you prefer Plato’s writing style that infuses his own opinions with the text?

Phaedrus Part 2

In the second half of Phaedrus, the debate of rhetoric as an art continues. While, Phaedrus thinks all speechwriting is bad, Socrates disagrees and thinks there can be a difference between good speeches and bad speeches. This raises the question of what qualities make a speech good? Thinking of past speeches in history, there are have been some terrible and some wonderful. For example, George Bush has a bad reputation regarding his speech giving abilities, while Obama has been given a great deal of admiration for his skills. It is interesting to consider whether there are truly good speeches and bad speeches today or if the speeches are given value based on the speaker's reputation. Can modern day society separate a speech from the speaker and judge them separately? Or are the two completely connected?

Socrates discusses in the second half of Phaedrus the question of rhetoric whether rhetoric should be considered an art. He makes the point that the speaker has to know truth and also have the skills of persuasion in order to be a good speaker. I agree with this point because many speakers today can preach the truth but still fail to persuade their audience because they are not persuasive enough. For example, growing up as a Catholic I attended multiple masses in which the priest gave homilies that were based on Catholic truths and knowledge yet still ended with people dozing off in the pews and twiddling their thumbs. I found myself wondering on many occasions like that if the message could be made more powerful if the priest developed rhetorical skills. Things like the organization of a speech, analysis, synthesis, and dialectic that Socrates discusses are very important to maintaining the audience’s attention and could be helpful in these situations. 

Socrates believes that in order for the rhetorician to be persuasive, they must understand how people react and respond to different kinds of persuasive devices. I think this lesson of learning how to categorize audiences is especially important today because appeals to emotion may not be appropriate for some audiences while appeals to numerical facts/statistics may not be appropriate for others.

Questions for Discussion:

1. What qualities do George Bush and Obama have that make their speeches good or bad in comparison to one another?

2. Provide an example of a type of appeal that is appropriate for a particular audience but not for another. Where have you seen appeals that work well, and where have you seen appeals that did not work for the intended audience?

Phaedrus Introduction

The introduction to Phaedrus helped me understand the context of the work as well as some important ideas that will be presented in the dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus. Compared to Gorgias, I found it interesting that Socrates is only speaking with one other philosopher compared to the three he spoke with in Gorgias. In addition, I thought it was interesting that the age of Socrates and Phaedrus was mentioned in the introduction and found myself wondering what effect this will have on their conversation together. Another odd element of the introduction was the clarification of the fact that Socrates and Phaedrus were not in love with one another. I am curious to see if I pick up any hints of them being in love with one another when I read their conversation because I did not have the feeling that Socrates was in love with any of the men he spoke with in Gorgias.

I noticed several common themes from the introduction that will appear in Phaedrus that were discussed in Gorgias, although it is clear that they will presented in a different manner. The question over the art of oratory seems to be appearing again as the introduction explains how both Socrates and Phaedrus share a love for words but their love differs because Socrates favors philosophy and Phaedrus favors speeches. The idea of virtue presents itself again too in a different way as Socrates speaks about basing speeches on knowledge and truth. As a philosopher, he is obsessed with the idea of truth. Just like we discussed in class last week, it is apparent that Socrates is thinking in terms of black and white again. Good and bad speeches are discussed without any mention of the possibility that a speech could fall somewhere in the middle of good and bad. According to Socrates, a good speech is one that is truthful, framed for the audience, and presented by a speaker who is not too attached to the work.

I thought the idea of being unattached to one’s work was particularly odd because I think of modern authors and orators as very attached to their works. While Socrates mentions that we should not be satisfied with being identified by anything we write, I feel that many modern thinkers and authors would disagree. Instead, I think they would often say that their work identifies them completely. For example, J.K. Rowling speaks about the Harry Potter novels as saving her life because she had fallen to such a low point prior to their success. She said, “I was set free because my greatest fear had been realized, and I still had a daughter who I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became a solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.” Because this “big idea” saved her life, I don’t think she would ever be able to completely detach herself from her work like Socrates suggests one should be able to do.

A feeling of competition seems to be present again because Socrates pressures Phaedrus into sharing the Lysias speech even though Phaedrus is obviously reluctant. Just like in Gorgias, it is clear that Socrates is trying to establish himself as the best thinker/rhetorician by challenging others and then one-upping them after they speak. After Phaedrus shares his speech, Socrates gives his speech about the same topic but makes sure it is better than Phaedrus’. Socrates also presents himself in the beginning by identifying with Phaedrus’ views and appearing to agree with him when he is actually attempting to achieve different points.

The idea of the soul being divided into three parts, one rational and two irrational reminded me of the concept of a conscience and guilt. I think Socrates used this imagery to explain virtue vs. pleasure again in a different way. In the conversation, I think he will present the idea that men can only be their personal best selves if they follow the rational part of their soul and avoid the temptations of pleasure that the irrational parts of the soul present.  The idea of love and sex might also fit into this metaphor because sex is often associated with pleasure and temptation. Take for example the controversy of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. In this case, President Clinton was clearly identifying with the irrational part of his soul and giving into the temptation of pleasure by having an affair with her despite his role as President and commitment to his wife. I believe Socrates would have a good deal of criticism to offer to someone in this position who choose to not live in a virtuous manner. 

Questions for discussion:

1.     Do you agree with Socrates’ statement on page xviii that, “we always need to move on and should never be content to be identified with anything we have written?”

2.     Do you think the age difference between Socrates and Phaedrus has any effect on their conversation? And do you think the speculations of love interest have any effect?