Throughout the reading for this week I could not help but be struck by the fact that minorities and women had to have a reason to write rather than just writing for philosophical fulfillment. Looking at the earlier rhetoricians such as Aristotle and Plato, they were able to write about oratory because it was a topic of the day and they wanted to further the epistemic questions behind rhetoric. For authors such as Willard and Douglass, they had to write for a cause. Although oratory was not the conversation of the day, and instead political and social movements became more of an issue, it still seems strange that in order to find a way into rhetoric there had to be something terrible happening. Looking at the notion of kairos, it makes sense that political movements increased an exigence of minority writers.
Rather than looking at just how the rhetorician has changed, I think it is also important to look at how the audience has shifted. The values people are reflecting in constructing their ethos, are placed upon them by the audience as well. As a postmodern reader, it is hard to not look at issues of Said's "the other" or Burke's notion of "identification" as ways minorities and women entered the rhetorical scene. By being seen as "other," they utilized these difference in order to appeal to a sense of Christian duty in helping people not like themselves. It would be almost impossible to not utilize religion as a way to increase ethos in oratory during the nineteenth-century. Not only was it the only way they could increase ethos, churches and schools were the only places minorities and women had a way to be politically heard. Without these public spaces and political/social issues minorities would never have been able to join the conversation.
Applying this to the now it is interesting to look at how many people can write blogs or perform commentary based on opinion rather than fighting for their rights or for epistemic purposes. The point of writing seemed clearer back then, I want to know what people's reasons for writing are now. Douglass stated, "Prejudice against color was rebellion against God" (1075) and Willard stated, "If a pastor is present ask him to offer prayer" (1136). The notion of religion increasing ethos within this sphere occurs frequently as ethics and morality was heavily involved in what makes someone a good orator, where as it seems now religion is a less stringent criteria. In a society heavily connected to sexuality and money it seems that being rich and beautiful would matter more than going to weekly mass. So now why do we write? How do we write?
I believe Jean-Paul Sartre ("Why Write?") could answer that question for you, along with a dozen other theorists. But you do bring up a very profound and striking observation about women and minorities.
ReplyDeleteBut I also don't know if the answer to that question really has changed. People still need a reason to write - whether its for making progress in terms of rhetorical theory, or simply to enter into the conversation through an acceptable means (religion). Today, we write blog posts about the things that we think matter, the causes that we want to make progress in: cooking, literature, politics, our own lives, etc.
I think what's changed is the value of the things that we write about, in a very subjective way. Everyone is now entitled to value whatever they want, however they want, whereas women and men in society back then were expected to care about religion, etc, and so the only way to speak to a large crowd was through these channels.