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?”