What struck me the most in this week's reading is how variable rhetoric is - not just in its creation, but in its interpretation. I knew there was some debate over what comprised rhetoric here in the western world because my fabulous comp instructors at CSUF would tell us that all writing is persuasive. I had never thought about that until Rick Hansen said it the first time. Then, as I came to believe it, I would restate it to others. Sometimes, someone's head would cock to one side or she would get a look in her eye and ask, really? What about X? And I'd explain how X actually required the rhetor to take a stand, even if it was to convince us that her interpretation of something was accurate. It's all rhetoric. It's all persuasive.
This hit me the most through reading about the evolution of rhetoric in Chapter 1. I knew from my first TTU course, Public Rhetorics, that Habermas saw interlocutors as qualified individuals who engaged and spoke to find and share truth. This seems far more aligned with Aristotle's definition of rhetoric: "intentional, strategic, and oral in nature. Rhetorical theorists of ancient times were interested in how speakers used rhetoric to achieve purposive ends, such as passing laws or making judicial decisions" (Borchers, 2006, p. 6). However, I didn't realize how variable the definition of rhetoric had been over the years. My own understanding of rhetoric seems to begin with Francis Bacon because he turned his focus to the audience whereas others had looked more at the speaker. When I teach my students about rhetoric, I often emphasize a bit of both, but the audience interpretation and experience are really the heart of everything. Apparently, I owe Bacon for this. And come on, who doesn't love b(B)acon? ;)
Although Burke's inclusion of symbols was only briefly mentioned, this made a lot of sense to me because I used to spend a good amount of time helping my students to unpack some of their connotations in things we read together. Symbols seem to work in a similar way, and their inclusion, I believe, paves the way for our current inclusion of film, music, TV, advertisements, clothing, and so many other indirect forms of rhetoric.
I was not at all familiar with Thomas Farrell, but I now love him for his inclusion of discourse. Ever since I read James Gee in my early comp classes, I have been in love with discourse. And I believe discourse leads us so nicely into thinking about non-Western rhetoric because discourse is all about understanding the expectations of a particular group in a particular setting/time/location. You cannot appreciate global rhetoric without appreciating Gee's discourse and discourse communities. And we wouldn't even care about global rhetoric without paying some mind to audience, so I suppose that's how they all tie together. So... on to the second part of this question!
I have not finished reading Chapter 9 yet, but there was one sentence that really represented the entire subject for me, and it wasn't even Borchers who wrote it. Molefi Asante, the father of Afrocentricity, is cited as saying, "It is important... that 'any interpretation of African culture must begin at once to dispense with the notion that, in all things, Europe is teacher and Africa is pupil" (Borchers, 2006, p. 229). As obvious as this should be and as egotistic as it is for this to come as a surprise, it really struck me. I had just written a note in response to Borcher's claim that we could not rely on "Western-centered rhetorical theory, such as Aristotle's ethos, pathos, and logos or Burke's pentad" because it "may lead to skewed and unreliable results" (p. 228). My note reads: "This totally makes sense, but what tools do we then have to analyze?" So when I read Asante's words on the very next page, I was embarrassed and saddened by my previous, albeit innocent, response. Of course our tools are not necessarily appropriate in other contexts. How could they be? And yet, I believe my response was valid. It's not like we are taught in school about ethos, pathos, logos, styling, and indirection. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be, but we aren't. That is why it is so important that we expose our own biases and become vulnerable to ask, what do other culture use to evaluate their speakers/rhetors/writers?
The more I thought about this idea, the more I began to see myself as arrogant and Eurocentric. I had learned about this concept in other classes - the need to be aware of a particular community's discourse to create effective disaster prevention materials or directions for use labels for medications. I had even written about how different cultures utilize different web design elements and colors. However, I had always used my own Western-based language, definitions, and understandings to frame these discussions. It is one of those things - almost a self-fulfilling prophecy or perhaps a feedback loop of sorts. We want to understand, so we use what we have to try to understand; however, this limits our ability and taints the way the "others" see us and our attempts to understand them. All of this is to say that I'm glad we are learning not just that culture X does things differently, but that culture X values A, B and C so that we can learn to value their rhetoric the way they do instead of just through our own Western-baised lenses.
Of course, everything is symbolic. Language itself is made up of symbols. This is an important principle in all forms of rhetorics, beginning for us with the Greeks. Plato is trying to find the truth as represented through language, and the debate renders the idea that we can only find what is probably the truth. Approximating reality through language begets the idea that we should be able to find the best ways to approximate. But are the best ways the best ways for every situation, or does it depend on the situation? Might be different for politics as it is for memorializing, for instance. And it depends on who is there during the situation, or who will be there if we're moving beyond the oral. I think looking at experience with Native American rhetoric is particularly fascinating, as well as reasoning with mythos in other cultures.
ReplyDeleteMmmm. Bacon.
ReplyDeleteI've always believed the audience is the main focus of rhetoric - not because I'm smart, but because if you're standing in front of a group of people saying something, you want their buy-ins. My rhetorical education (until college) started at audience then worked its way back to "what are you doing right/wrong as a speaker?"
I'm glad that you wrote about our own arrogance and Eurocentricity. Like you said, even if we don't intend to be this way, we have a tendency to do so. Even when we learn about different cultures, for some reason we try to comprehend them through our Western eyes. Just as you said we think of how we would say something or advertise something here in the U.S. and assume it will just translate over correctly and be effective. Too many times has this strategy failed us. It's like when Chevy tried to sell their Nova model in Spanish speaking countries without doing research. No one bought the vehicle because it literally translated to "no go." I definitely agree with you about us needing to learn the values of other cultures and what they deem as important.
ReplyDelete