Monday, September 5, 2011

The Meaning of Rhetoric, The Meaning of Life?

Hello all,
So it seems that a commonly asked and never (?) answered question is: What is rhetoric? I hear it all the time and usually the answer starts with: Well, I can't really say. The way it is frequently approached is through history: the history of Western Civilization and the communication that we currently employ from everyday speech to our most important writing/speeches. There are loads of formulas out there on how to communicate well: how to speak rhetorically with proficiency and Covino and Jolliffe go over the basics: Invention, arrangment, memory, delivery: these all seem like horrific pieces of rhetoric, the bad, nightmarish image of public communication classes and high school speeches in English class come to mind with these words. But, the reality of Rhetoric is that without its history, without the history of life, there is no such thing as rhetoric. The story of rhetoric and its many applications is an interesting view into the history of humanity, how we interact, when we decided to change the way we interact and most importantly what we have decided is important to talk about throughout the years. Rhetoric is extremely important and for powerful people is the means to their success. There are many factors in what makes successful rhetoric that are included in who a person is, their personal style, their background, their knowledge on the subject but what it comes down to is the basic structure of public speaking and communication, which now includes blogging, vlogging, and really any internet activity with which persuasive power and trust is given to the author.

As far as the Grant-Davie article is concerned, I am really impressed with the idea of a rhetor addressing the need to change: it makes a lot of sense.The way people are inspired to change things around them are often due to the way it is presented: the words used to summarize a bill, a speech given by a powerful person, a car salesman giving you the rundown on the new, family-safe Subaru, a high school guidance counselor explaining the importance of higher education: the presentation and its effectiveness are all a part of the particular discourse: the speaker(author) and the audience. What makes it effective is the ability of the author to communicate and empathize with the given audience. Everything else can simply fall into place and the "why" that everyone struggles over is simple: there are points in human history when things combine to create a setting, a specific history, a "placement" in history, time, geography, etc which causes something to be particularly effective. To give a speech on the importance of women's suffrage today would be misplaced historically while the issue of human trafficking is something that has been a serious issue for years. The "Why" of rhetoric is almost as important as the "when", in my opinion.

Rhetoric is a vastly interesting topic, as it provides more questions than answers in the actual study of it but the practice of it often creates grand shifts in ideologies of the people of the world. What an interesting combination: a person could potentially study rhetoric their entire life and use it very poorly or a person could study and know nothing about the ins-and-outs of rhetoric and still be an extraordinarily persuasive rhetorician. I'm really interested to see how this course will address the technology of Rhetoric, as it is a huge and extremely important part of our current and future lives.

1 comment:

  1. Firstly, a disclaimer directed to those who know this is my wife. We did not discuss or share ideas or in anyway taint the general scholastic blogging environment (we may have however shared a bottle of wine).

    That said, and outside of the eerily similar blog post content, scope and design, I really thought you had relevant comments on the reading. I am curious, how we define successful rhetoric. Sure it is in part defined by the rhetorical situation and outcome of the rhetoric, but using classical examples say women's suffrage writings before their time, do we judge their success by immediate results, current discourse or future discourse? Maybe then we look at the "viralness" of the rhetoric. How many people were exposed/effected? What would this mean for digital rhetoric?

    ReplyDelete