It was a little easier earlier this semester when our authors for the week (by and large) were speaking directly about rhetoric. There's been a little bit of shift lately in that our writers employ rhetoric, and contribute to its evolution, but aren't necessarily working directly on the subject, but rather using rhetoric as a means to an end.
I had trouble on this point while reading Douglass's My Bondage and My Freedom. His writing and story drew me in to the point that I wasn't really paying attention to how he captured my attention so completely, but just focused on the story. The fact that I was completely drawn in by his writing indicates that he is employing excellent rhetoric, but I had to go back again to look at the how and why, and not just the story.
That said, reading Douglass reminded me of another article I read eariler in my Digital Rhetorics class by Walter Fisher. In his article, Fisher makes an argument that all communication (and therefore including, by our most general definition, rhetoric) is narration. So I suppose that if I were to put a label on Douglass's rhetoric, I would say it is the rhetoric of narration. It is a story, but a story that demands the reader to pay attention (and be persuaded), to Douglass's mission. According to Fisher, narration is the most natural form of human communication, so I could see how a piece of writing employing narrative rhetoric could and would appeal to a wide (possibly all-encompassing?) audience. When I first read Fisher's article, I was a little suspicious as to whether the narration model could actually work, but I will say that, at least in connection to Douglass's writing, it is certainly more powerful than our 'traditional' model of rhetoric/communication.
This week's readings brought Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm to my mind as well; Douglass in particular relates vivid life experiences so as to argue his point, although Willard seems to do the same thing on a smaller scale.
ReplyDeleteAs far as pathos, logos, and ethos are concerned...an account of one's experiences, and the emotions connected to them, would seem to fall under the "pathos" label. Ironically, this category was the most scorned of the three in classical times...
Though I have yet to nail down my own concrete definition of rhetoric considering all the interpretations we've been presented with this semester, I'm glad to see some sense of it being applied to subject more common to my own knowledge. Students, at least in Montana, grew up learning about the Native Americans and United States History so I was happy to have at least a little basic situational knowledge of what the rhetoric was being applied to in the pieces by Douglass and Willard. I've focused my understanding on the ideas of oratory and public persuasion, though this is certainly not the extent of rhetoric. I think it's important to focus on some key concepts that you understand and go from there. These classical/modern comparisons help me to better understand rhetoric as contextually relevant and consistently present.
ReplyDeleteI complteley understand where you are coming from with these feelings about our texts. I am constantly asking myself if this is a speech about rhetoric? Is this a speech using rhetoric? Is this rhetoric about speech? And pretty much every combination of concepts being put together in various ways. Lately I have also noticed that it is less about rhetoric, and more about showing the use of it. But sometimes it is both! So weird...
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to see what combinations of these terms works best for different students in our class. Like me for example, I like when the rhetor just uses the rhetoric in what he is talking about instead of talking about the rhetoric itself, that way in class we can talk about the way he uses it instead of how he tells us that we need to use it. I like it this way because it leaves more room for interpretation and discussion, and maybe even a little debate!