The Rhetorical Tradition, p. 1410-1428, 1432-1436, and 1460-1470

"We all know that the university and the whole education system that is supposed to distribute knowledge we know that the university system maintains the power in their hands of a certain social class, and exclude other social classes from this power" -Michael Foucault

The line between philosophers and rhetoricians is so blurry, that I'm not sure why it even exists. This chapter of ARCS brings Foucault's views of discourse to light, focusing namely on his views of sexuality and individual identity.

I have a lot of respect for Foucault. I, too, have a great deal of interest in psychology and the human mind, and I believe that a knowledge of how it works contributes greater understanding of rhetoric as a whole. His argument that it is our position to question our institutions, and to question supposed neutrality is how I happen to approach writing in general. It is absolutely our duty as citizens to call into question the decisions made by our government, and the choices they make in the name of "independence."

Toulmin does appear to be more traditional with his approach. His arguments concerning arguments are far less abstract, though no less significant. I had a much more difficult time emotionally connecting with his perspective, though he does effectively detail a successful argument. The result is a strong contrast between a modern rhetorician, and someone who adheres to more classical perspectives.

Paper 3

Electronic Storytelling: Modern rhetoric at its finest

Modern rhetoric is derived from older schools of thought in rhetoric; it is entirely contingent upon classical rhetoric to give it meaning, since it depends entirely on reshaping classical ideals into new ways to create meaning. Philosopher Kenneth Burke defines Modern Rhetoric as, “rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic, and is continually born anew; the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols.” (Burke, 43) As rhetoric continues to adapt and change with the centuries, the art of storytelling has changed as well—with modern storytellers choosing new methods with which to share their stories.

Rhetoric has shifted beyond simple oration and written word into new media, with the incorporation of photographs, video, Internet, and a variety of new technology. Texts rarely stand alone—most effective means of communication include images and diagrams that can further the point of the text. While a classical rhetor might argue that something as simple as step-by-step instructions printed on the web is hardly rhetoric, a modern rhetor would assert that the pictures, text, and the web page that contains them both, make up the essence of modern rhetoric—a means to assist the reader with how best to complete a project, with every element working together to create meaning. Such scholars as Roland Barthes devoted their work to the validity of photographs as a means of storytelling, and Barthes focused on this, placing emphasis on the effectiveness of sound and photograph as methods of conveyance.

Beyond this, print is waning as a main form of communication. Modern journalism relies almost solely on web-based media to inform readers and viewers of what is current, while newspapers across the country have faded into the background. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and the Economist have all adopted online versions in an effort to adjust to the changing climate of rhetoric in modern America.

Additionally, according to an article printed by Ars Technica just over a year ago, 91 percent of the population own and operate cell phones or mobile devices. Nielsen estimates that 1 in 2 Americans will own a smartphone by Christmas of 2011, and texting and abbreviated language used within these messages has emerged as a new kind of language. The smartphone has produced a culture with a world of information at its fingertips—information that is conveyed through photograph and video. Rhetoric has shifted beyond the use of pen and paper, or even beyond the simple word processor, as a culture that loses attention span each year looks for a faster means to access information. The iPad has contributed to this shift, where tablets have allowed the average user to realize the Star Trek dream—a touch-screen tablet that is capable of sharing information with other peers effortlessly. These devices suggest a shift in our culture toward the tendency of post-literacy—or a culture that no longer requires reading and writing to communicate effectively.

Classical rhetoric laid this framework thousands of years ago, but with a much more rigid structure. Published works of Plato and Aristotle detailed exact formulas through which one might formulate an argument; Aristotle’s Rhetoric specifically details instances in which certain extrinsic proofs and arguments may be made, and which places these arguments may not be used. The use of logos, pathos, and ethos remained formulaic—with arguments established with methods similar to that of completing a mathematic equation.

The most effective method of constructing pathos and ethos was through storytelling. The classical communicators used stories to sway the audience to their positions, with grandiose gestures and powerful deliver to inspire emotion. William G. Kirkwood recounts a tale of Rabbi Jacob Joseph and Bal Shem Tov in Storytelling and Self-Confrontation, in which Bal Shem uses a parable to persuade the rabbi to accept the emptiness of the temple. Kirkwood states that, “parables are told to arouse both sympathetic and hostile listeners to recognize and overcome those thoughts, feelings, attitudes and actions which impede their spiritual growth.” (Kirkwood, 58) He conveys the significance of a story as an addition to an argument, and the importance of the story has carried into modern times in everyday communication.

Joe Sabia effectively communicates the shift in rhetoric from classical to modern through his TED talk, “The Technology of Storytelling.” Instead of employing traditional methods through which to give his speech, he chooses to share the story of the evolution of the book as a storytelling device—using his iPad as a visual. He engages his audience in elements of traditional oration, but includes technology as a vessel for his message.

The presentation itself is highly effective as a means to communicate the history of the storytelling process. It references the classic oration by whimsically mimicking the style of traditional storytellers in the tradition of Homer’s Odyssey. He hypes Lothar Meggendorfer up through a dramatic introduction, lifting him to an arguably god-like status in the eyes of the audience. He uses such tropes as “Once upon a time,” and “he changed the game forever.” In fact, his introduction tends to reference not only the great epics, but hyper-dramatic movie trailers of high-budget action thrillers.

His presentation itself is the perfect example of a form of meta-commentary—while detailing the changes to the art of storytelling throughout history, he is demonstrating them through iPad visualization. This is an evolved form of classical delivery. Early rhetors gave a presentation to an audience, face-to-face, sharing stories to convey their point; Sabia does the same thing through his presentation, only he reconstructs this classical practice with modern technology. Just as Burke suggest of modern rhetoric, Sabia is rebirthing the practice of rhetorical thinking by revamping the process.

Throughout his speech, he demonstrates modern technology at work—he displays video clips, live browser searches, photographs, and tablet technology to explain the detailed history of the storybook.  Although he incorrectly cites Lothar Meggendorfer as the first pop-up book writer in history (Ernest Nisten produced true pop-up books at around the same time), he still chooses a worthy individual to mention. Meggendorfer himself could be considered a modern rhetorician. Through the construction of a medium that was more suitable for him to tell his stories, Meggendorfer shifted the tone of the story from 2D to 3D, opening the door for other elements to be included in the process.

Sabia further acknowledges the changes in media by explaining where the story has traveled beyond the pop-up book—“opera to vaudeville, radio news to radio theater, film to film in motion to film in sound, color, 3D, on VHS and DVD.” (Sabia) He argues that those inspired by Meggendorfer are agents of change within other media—that he set into motion a chain of rhetorical adjustment, with individual interpretation of media creating new mediums from which rhetoricians may learn and improve the learning process. This would state that Meggendorfer, and every agent of change to follow, is a modern rhetorician, with Sabia following suit by introducing a revolutionary method of presentation.

Ultimately, Sabia succeeds as a rhetorician. He caters to the attention span of modern society by engaging every sensory capacity of the audience—restructuring ethos in such a way as to allow the audience to wholly invest in his message. He employs humor, creativity, and an independent meta-commentary on the evolution of the presentation and story, while retaining the elements of classical mantras of speech and delivery.

Work Cited

Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. London, England: University of California Press, Ltd,

      1950. Print. 43.

“Joe Sabia: The Technology of Storytelling.” Ted.com. Nov 2011. Web. 23 Nov 2011.

Foresman, Chris. “Wireless Survey: 91% of Americans use cell phones.” Ars Technica. 2010.

     Web. 23 Nov 2011 <http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-91-of-

     americans-have-cell-phones.ars>

Enter, Roger. “Smartphones to Overtake Feature Phones in U.S. by 2011.” Nielson Wire. 26 

     March 2010. Web. 23 November 2011. <http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/

     smartphones-to-overtake-feature-phones-in-u-s-by-2011/>

The Rhetorical Tradition, p. 1181-1226

Confession time: I went into studying rhetoric, thinking it had absolutely no relevance to my life. My boyfriend informed me that was what he intended to study for graduate school, and I said, "really? What do you expect to do with that?" ARCS gets into modern rhetoric, how it relates to our everyday lives in a more modern sense, and really breaks this down. If I weren't already a believer, I would be now.

It's easy to see how society views rhetoric as an archaic study: Textbooks and assigned readings in K-12 education dismiss it as a study of classical oration, briefly touching on the founding fathers, and maybe how Plato defined relationships and gave some speeches somewhere in history. Students graduate scratching their heads, not even realizing that their admissions essays and that speech the Valedictorian gave, that went largely ignored, were examples of how important rhetoric is in their every day lives.

Thankfully, new media is emerging as a popular field of study (possibly too late for me, as I'm looking at graduate programs and can only find two in the entire country) in academia, and is reinventing entirely how society perceives rhetoric, beyond the podiums of long-dead orators. This allows the public to see that rhetoric goes far beyond spoken and written word; it lies in every communication choice we make. If only students could understand that those choices they make when trying to convince their parents to give them money rely entirely on an understanding of effective arguments.

It's too bad I will probably always have this conversation:

Person: "What do you study?"
Me: "Visual Media and Rhetoric"
Person: "Oh...rhetoric. What is that again?"

ARCS, Chapter 12

As I've mentioned before, I am a fan of discourse as an art form. Debate, spoken word poetry, modern art: These all effectively display an understanding of a subject, or give meaning to something that allows the audience to experience subject matter in a way it has never thought before. ARCS delves into the various methods of speech, and touches on visual aspects of historical and modern presentation.

I'm trying to remember the last time I gave a speech without a presentation. It's a daunting though. Speech and debate was the only arena in which we were not expected to have a visual aide of some kind, and it really forced the speaker to focus on diction and syntax, without having a picture of some kind to make the argument for him/her.

I generally advocate this approach to most subjects. While a visual aide can be a highly effective tool for an experienced rhetor, it has the unfortunate side effect of being a crutch. A lazy student can now throw together a Powerpoint presentation, and rely on it solely for making an argument. It requires little flair of language, little attempts to add interest, and hardly any preparation (since most of the statements can be read off a slide without appearing totally unprofessional). I think learning how to give effective presentations should be treated like art; you start off learning how to draw the basics, and you add onto them later.

Removing a visual aide from a presentation forces the speaker to focus entirely on the actual message. Unless speakers intend to use that visual aide as an assistant to the presentation, rather than expecting it to make an argument for them, leave it at home. I want to hear your very best, most convincing, argument given from the heart--no, I do not want to see you sway awkwardly back and forth while staring at your notecards.

ARCS, Chapter 11; The Rhetorical Tradition, p.981-1030

I'm only going to touch briefly on the Rhetorical Tradition reading, since I believe that although it is important, I really connected with the ARCS reading.

Taking my usual feminist approach with the readings, I was pleased to see that women were actively inserting themselves in rhetoric, as a study. It's refreshing to see that, although they were discriminated against, they were at least presented with the option of higher education. They contributed more to the field than ever before, leading well into compositional theory as something that became more accepted in the study of rhetoric. Lucky for contemporary, since now Rhetoric/Composition is an accepted field of study for graduate students, and provides a comprehensive review of the necessary components of teaching students how to properly construct an argument.

ARCS Chapter 11 mentioned something that I believe is absolutely crucial to forming a convincing argument: memory. Although the internet is readily available for students today, it's easy to tell when someone has relied on it to construct an essay. The most thoughtfully-constructed arguments rely on the memory of the writer; the information that has been retained in the human mind is drawn on for a framework of an argument, and factual specifics are inserted into the argument to give credibility.

It is even easier to note the students who did not adequately prepare themselves for a speech. I am a veteran of speech and debate in high school, and the arguments that won the most awards were constructed by those who managed to research the subject so thoroughly that the argument managed to form itself during the actual debate. These students sounded more at ease with the subject, more comfortable with answering questions, and generally had better ethos when they learned a great deal about the subject before they formulated an argument.

Learning about a subject leaves a lot of room in essay construction for creative language, and a greater emphasis on structure and flow of the paper, rather than scrambling over factual information. I've learned to treat the Internet as a learning tool, and try to read as much about a variety of subjects over a period of time, so that I may become more knowledgeable when my peers ask me how I feel about it. Though we have the internet at our fingertips, it is important to focus on retaining that information in any way possible, so we can better ourselves as individuals.

ARCS, Chapter 10

I have to say, I have little room to criticize the sticklers out there. My nickname in my high school history class was "Grammar Nazi." I was the copy editor of four different newspapers. I corrected people who confused "good" and "well."

But it appears I am moving away from that. Reading about the Enlightenment focus on grammar and punctuation as a means to convey an argument, rather than colloquial language, was almost frustrating for me. I know I have no place to judge history, but this appears to be choking out pathos when expressions and familiar language are removed from the equation.

This is not to say that I don't appreciate grammar, but I believe that this period laid the groundwork for the modern editing process. When I hand my paper to a peer for review, I am never expecting this individual to hand it back to me with, "comma splice" and "capitalize here" written all over it, but it almost always happens. I want that paper to be evaluated for content, argument, and overall meaning, and this is so muddled by the focus on technical aspects of language. It's like memorizing formulas in mathematics, without understanding how they work; what's the real point? Will that information be memorable ten years from now?

Obviously misuse of a word (their v. there, &c) is much more of a glaring error when evaluating work. I can understand the need to adjust that. But, a comma splice, like, the ones I have used in this sentence, can be overlooked if what I am saying is meaningful. When the reader is fixating on a minor error that doesn't necessarily impede credibility, the message is completely lost.

Rhetorical Tradition, Rhetoric of the Enlightenment

Anything I'd ever remembered of John Locke was from my high school AP history class, so it was really rewarding to get a look at him from this perspective. He exerted such considerable influence on our politics, and further research reveals that he essentially invented epistemology. His emphasis on emotional involvement in an argument really drove home the idea that good ethos can help your side better than anything else.

And I continue to be shocked with the number of feminist, gender-defying women pre-20th century. I don't know why I expected history to be filled with pathetic women, but it so refreshing to read about Mary Astell. These women paved the way for themselves as writers, philosophers, and rhetoricians.

She was the "first English feminist," who expressed some fairly forward thinking thoughts, including the idea that a woman must have a successful education if she expects to succeed in marriage (that's a completely modern concept that even contemporary women have a deal of trouble grasping). Astell also breached classic rhetoric and decided instead to use conversational style in her writing to reach out to women of the time, through works as A Serious Proposal for Ladies and Practical Discourses.

The Elocution Movement was probably the single most important element discussed in the reading, since rhetoric and oration fell by the wayside in the wake of scientific thought and logos-based argument. Prior to reading about him, I always thought Francis Bacon was considered a rhetorician by trade, but to read him generally dismissing it as inferior to scientific thought, I was fairly surprised.

All in all, this section shook a lot of my perceptions of this period of history (I'll be sure to call my high school teachers and inform them that we really hardly skimmed the surface).