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).

Rhetoric in History, Paper 2

In the Renaissance era, writing emerged as a scholarly pursuit, and became accessible to the public as more than just a means to convey factual information. While Plato and others had practiced writing centuries earlier, it is arguable that it was a medium that remained largely inaccessible, due to a lack of education and the notion that such practices were reserved for nobility. Early nobility attempted to suppress interest in writing and education, reserving it for those in power as a means to retain this power.

Modern communication has seen the separation of the term “rhetoric” from writing in the public eye, and the origins of this can be seen in the Renaissance era (though the full extent of this separation would not grab hold until centuries later). The Renaissance ultimately brought the untimely sleep of oration as an art form, the burgeoning of public interest in intellectualism and scholarly pursuit, and the expression of this interest and emotional investment in writing itself.

Prior to the Renaissance, oration maintained a hold on the public as not only a means of communicating information, but a method of personal expression. Greek and Roman culture developed public speaking as an art form that not only maintained the legal system, but entertained the public. The general public began to view writing as superior, as it succinctly expressed true facts, while oration was considered to be biased and largely based on personal opinion (since that was the way speeches were considered credible in ancient Greece). Scholasticism and Humanism focused namely on resolving ancient conflicts of spiritualism through dialectics and debate-like exchange in writing, and oration fell by the wayside. One could say that science deflated the artistic vigor of the medium, and rhetoric as an accepted concept, followed from the public eye.

Scholasticism placed particular importance on academic mentality, and the absorption of information. Scientific approaches to situations and arguments took precedence over the highly-personal speeches and writings of rhetoric, causing general development of the field to be dissuaded. Writing itself became a way for the masses to express themselves, though the art of rhetoric generally faded into the background. Scientific pursuits grew, with writing as the main means to communicate this information; there was no longer a place for the oral art.

Following the miniature “death” of oration was the decay of public faith in “the classics.” While renowned philosopher and writer Peter Ramus was an orator and professor himself, he primarily chose to communicate through writing his distaste for Aristotle, though “distaste” might be a lenient word to describe his sentiment, as Ong paraphrased his sentiment in Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue, as “all the things Aristotle has said because they are poorly systemized, and can be called to mind only by the use of arbitrary mnemonic devices.” (Ong, 46-47) This sentiment was shared by most Scholastics, and general interest in Aristotle’s philosophies waned. These scholars wished to question the knowledge around them, to expand on these concepts and reach a conclusion about a variety of religious and philosophical questions, including existence.

While writing emerged as a tangible form of communication, oration fell into the shadows as an incredible method of conveying meaning in the era where Humanism dictated policy. Rhetoric, as a whole, became less important, as science moved into the foreground.

ARCS, Chapter 9

• Introduction
• Narration
• Proof
• Conclusion

Four steps that are often grossly abused by inexperienced writers. We see it in essays written in five-paragraph essays, with a neat, one-paragraph, introduction, three body paragraphs containing evidences, and a one-paragraph conclusion.

It's nice to see arrangement addressed in this book, especially with the notion in mind that perhaps, someday, the five-paragraph essay will meet its untimely death. The information contained within this chapter is comprehensive enough to walk through the most inexperienced writer (the whole book, really).

The introduction is often the place where the writer falls flat, using such convoluted openers as, "Since the beginning of time," and "When I was sitting down to write this paper..." As Cicero stated, honorable cases need no introduction (ARCS 297), but in this situation, an honorable case may appear to be less-than-honorable with a flawed introduction. The intention is to draw the reader into the issue, completely inform the reader, then leave that reader with some reason to remember you.

ARCS, Chapter 8; Margaret Fell

"Extrinsic proof" is a fancy word for the evidences that back us up in our claims--testimonies, data, and artifacts that are not created by the rhetor, but, instead, exist already.

I'm a fan of the section that mentioned specifically the lack of reliability some authors have, affecting their ability to provide extrinsic proof to a paper. As a veteran of speech and debate, it was always depressing to see someone argue pro-choice while citing such sources as "legalizeabortion.com." Biased, incredible, sources riddle papers and communication efforts to this day; my favorite of those being students who believe that The Onion is a serious news source and cite it as proof for a ludicrous argument.

The Rhetorical Tradition reading was absolutely enthralling. I had no idea such an early, successful, feminist rose out of the Quaker movement. Margaret Fell's advocation of equality so early in history is a true sign that perhaps I misjudged many early women for being to submissive to the idea of the male authoritative figure. I have a great deal of respect for the Religious Society of Friends, especially given that they place emphasis on rhetoric before physical action--as a society, they intended to maintain the peace by settling disputes verbally.

The Rhetorical Tradition, p. 553-580

The Renaissance continues to be one of the most powerful periods of history, in my opinion. When I think I've read enough about it, I find something else that pulls me back in.

Most of my background in the area is from an art standpoint, but reading about the rhetoricians is something new for me. Humanism was such a profound period, but I knew very little about Scholasticism, or it's effects on the writing of the time and beyond.

My computer is something I take for granted--I cannot write without it, I can't really even read without it (I prefer e-books). This time period saw the origins of true writing--creative individuals who stood up for what they believed in to actually write, quill and paper, about rhetoric and so many influential philosophies that shape modern communication. It's hard to grasp.

ARCS, Chapter 7

"The Afghan Girl" by Steve McCurry

After chuckling at the name of the chapter, I decided that the distinctions between pathetic proofs and ethical proofs often overlap. What could be an emotional claim can also establish your authority on the subject, especially in a situation where experiencing a painful life experience lends to an individual's credibility.

I find that emotional appeals are the most important in captivating interest of the audience. This is not to say that one is crying over a life story, but is simply attempting to move the audience to some sort of action or belief using inspirational means (sharing a story for motivation, or a news story to inspire outrage).

These are especially important when spicing up a bland topic. The use of humor to diffuse a tense situation is a form of pathos, as a means to inspire happiness, and ultimately lighten the mood for successful speaking. The example cited in the book is a perfect situation in which multimedia has great success--in an attempt to reflect on the negativity of the war in Iraq, nothing conveys the sadness and pain as well as a picture, or perhaps a video.

Well-executed multimedia of any kind is an ultimate trifecta; the rhetorical triangle, encompassed. It serves to establish truth, as there is concrete evidence that can be seen with the eye, it can inspire emotion, and if I am the photographer, it expresses the fact that I was there, giving me credibility in my argument.

Steve McCurry is an excellent example of a photographer who can inspire ethos. Through his work with National Geographic, he has moved millions of Americans to donate to his Iraqi Girl's School funds. National Geographic's stories about the horrors of war in Afghanistan could be perfectly effective on their own, but his photograph "The Afghan Girl" won national attention and inspired thousands to "move away from their indifference," (ARCS 257) and to assist in a cause.

The Rhetorical Tradition, Boethius

Boethius placed a great emphasis on the Plato's studies, especially that of the imbalance between a higher power and man. He also makes an important distinction between argument and argumentation--the former being the constitution of a belief, and the latter being the expression of that belief.

I can't say I necessarily understand how he distinguishes the two; especially given that they are so intertwined--one cannot express belief without possessing a belief initially, so one cannot inherently do one without the other. 

I do enjoy his deconstruction of logic into three parts: that which defines, that which divides, that which deduces. The ARCS readings reflect this distinction, and there are no real instances of logic that does not fit into these categories. Defining logic would be used when writing a paper and taking a moment to explain the meaning of the word, logos, most appropriately. Dividing logic would be a positioned fact in a debate that would throw doubt into the air and break down an opponent's argument. A deducing logic would make a claim that could be readily backed up with supporting evidence, as we often do when we choose to write a paper.

He was an interesting man, but I was most interested in reading further on him to find that he may have slipped into Paganism at the last minute on his death bed. He made it that far, what made him lose his religion so suddenly? Did he actually lose his religion at all? Juicy gossip, of course.

ARCS, Chapter 6

This chapter discussed ethos, or ethical proof. This is such a difficult thing for the average rhetorician to accomplish, as our culture is not only trained to embrace some kind of "humility," but we are inclined to distrust certain authority figures to a point where the ethos may work against us.

Where ethos is most common is in our work cited pages. While also exemplifying logos, work cited pages display credibility as an author--proving to the audience that I know exactly what I am talking about, and that I have researched the topic sufficiently enough to write about it.

An individual influences ethos through voice, whether the rhetor chooses to maintain a formal distance, or to establish a personal relationship with the audience. To continue the doctor example I established before, this would be like a bedside manner--formal is fine, but the patient is more easily persuaded to trust a doctor that is friendly, warm, and personal.

Perhaps the greatest disqualification of credibility is punctuation and grammar. This is not to say that it is the most important aspect of an academic paper--in fact, some would argue that it is the least. However, when deciding whether to consider a paper as a viable source of information, poor grammar is something an individual is trained to look for as a red flag. If the author misuses a common expression, or uses an incorrect form, credibility plummets. If I opened this post with "I'd like to flush out an idea with you," a professional might pass it by, dismissing it for uneducated dribble.

Pericles Funeral Oration Response

Pericles performed the Funeral Oration as a response to the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War. His speech was a celebration of not only those who died in combat, but of the city of Athens itself. It was the first of its kind, as the known history of Athens shows no other speech breaking away from the traditional formula of the funeral oration prior to this one. He chooses not to focus on the achievements of the past, reveling in hours of Athenian history, but to instead praise and glorify a then-modern-day Athens. This was unheard of.
The speech is renowned for its focus on the successes of Athenian democracy and glorification of Athens as a city that the war dead would willingly die for, with honor. Pericles relies heavily on pathos to persuade the people that Athens is, in fact, the greatest city; this speech is heavily emotionally driven and praises the honorable deaths those men earned in combat.

The speech also deceptively employs several instances of logos; they are not true, unbiased facts, but Pericles lists several instances in which he attempts to convince the audience using logical entreaties.

"Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, though and we never expel a foreigner and prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him." -Pericles

This appears to be a logical statement that, realistically, Athens is a better military system than the others, although there is nothing beyond a mere speculation to back up this claim.

I discovered that the most challenging aspect of imitating this speech was avoiding slipping into parody. Staying true to the original motivations of the speech was a little difficult than I'd originally expected; I chose to draw a parallel between the Athenian dead and the music industry. I found myself slipping into scolding modern artists rather than praising them, since I slipped into mourning a dead music industry without finding comfort in the strengths of the modern artists, which strayed from the original intention of the speech. It's a lot harder than I'd originally expected to avoid slipping my own thoughts and feelings into the actual framework of the speech. Pericles originally intended the speech to be a praise, since it was given for the respect of those who died at a funeral. My final product slipped into criticism.

This does give me newfound respect for the ancient rhetors, however. Reading Pericles Funeral Oration, allows the reader to understand a proud people who praised, wholeheartedly, their government and relied entirely on nationalism to motivate. They respected an honest exchange of ideas and criticism, and however fleeting this system was for Athens, it's easy to see why they reigned supreme for so long. Athens laid the framework for an original democracy, and influenced the system from which our government is based, however our modern rhetoricians fail to deliver such hearty praise. Pericles felt it acceptable to break from a formulaic norm--a bold move that I do not feel would be so readily executed today. Modern rhetoricians have not delivered something so motivational since perhaps Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Modern day speaking has managed to lose many of the elements of honesty and charm that Pericles employed in his oration. Additionally, he succeeded in rousing inspiration and life out of something so morbid as death--this is a rare thing for modern politicians, as a dedication to fluff often results in their saying nothing at all. However, they do succeed in rousing a crowd, by celebrating an "American spirit," and that is in many ways similar to how Pericles motivates here.

ARCS, Chapter 5

Logical proof is one of the most important, if not the most lacking, aspect of communication in the modern arena. While people are often quick to establish themselves with some semblance of pathos ("My sister had an abortion, and it was a traumatizing experience for her, so it should be illegal") or ethos ("Trust me, I'm a doctor), logos is often overlooked in favor of emotional emphasis.

So many arguments fail miserably without logos. The ARCs example is, "the moon orbits around the earth." How would we fathom making this argument without hard evidence and actual proof? A rhetorical probability (eikos) is something that one must deal with when constructing an argument (will giving that speech about abortion make my pro-life colleagues angry? Or will they join in the debate?) These two properties function well together, as eikos is, in a way, a form of logos--although less reliable than mathematical probability.

Deductive reasoning versus induction has always been something I struggled to differentiate (I often got one confused with the other). Now that I've read this chapter, I can say that I don't believe I will have that problem anymore.

The Rhetorical Tradition, p. 169-240

I find it most interesting that one of Aristotle's most substantial works began as simple class notes. I think this gives us a greater picture of what his philosophy and everyday perspective on the subject of rhetoric, as it becomes clear that Rhetoric was likely never intended to be published, and therefore lacked the careful planning and process of elimination that often goes into a work.

The three kinds of speeches Aristotle mentions could include rational appeals are:
1) Forensic speeches; examining past actions of the court
2) Deliberative speeches; focus on the future of the court, and possibility
3) Epideictic or ceremonial speeches; reserved for awards or funeral.

The article mentions that Aristotle believe first, and foremost, topoi, or topics or "places," must be found for each location, and determined suitable. While forensic and deliberative speeches are considerably less common in modern practice than in ancient history, this model can easily be applied to our modern communications--and topoi can be applied, nonetheless, to ensure effective communication.

Three modern speeches are:
1) Casual conversation; taking place among friends or familiars, lacking in the rigid formality of perhaps a...
2) Academic conversation; applicable to school and work settings, where formality is required, but not to the extent of preparing a written presentation (unless asked)
3) Epideictic or ceremonial speeches; reserved for awards or funeral.

Considering these venues, it is easy to envision a scenario where topoi becomes important. When Stuart is with his friends, he may make a joke about the professor of his English class in order to articulate his frustration with the curricula; this same remark is markedly inappropriate while in his English class, or while giving a speech at the English Department awards banquet later in the year (unless his professor is easygoing, and it does not come off as disrespectful, which is another topic entirely).

Aristotle's list of pre-made topics are only useful within the specific venues he lists, much like the informal "danger zones" we must learn to avoid in modern situations, and the acceptable language of professional situations.

ARCS, Chapter 3

The issue of the acceptability and legality of abortion continues to pervade the effectiveness of discourse in the American political system. As ARCS discusses, the issue lies in the lack of statsis within the arguments conducted by officials that continue to discuss the issue.

As the book lays out the points made throughout each argument, it becomes clear that politicians and activists are not discussing the same issue. As it states on page 81:

"Stasis Achieved: Rhetors Can Now Agree to Disagree
A. Abortion is murder
B. Abortion is not murder."

The issue here is that the argument made by opposing political parties looks a little more like this:

"A. Abortion is murder
B. Women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies, including terminating a pregnancy."

The result is two arguments that are not in stasis; as ARCS demonstrates, no one in the pro-choice camp will argue, "Abortion is not murder," and no pro-life camp will state, "a woman has no right to decide what happens to her body." Since the parties will not argue the same facts, it can be stated that no solution will ever come to this argument; no two of the same argument will be made, and people will always disagree.

Ultimately, the issue with lack of stasis in this argument lies with the inability of either party to accept that "agreeing to disagree" is an acceptable compromise. This is additionally problematic, since a lack of definitive conclusion on the issue makes it difficult to formulate policy to regulate abortion in the first place.

ARCS, Chapter 2

The chapter mentions global warming as an effective example of kairos at work; I couldn't agree more. No one was a greater champion of global warming than Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth won two academy awards that year.

His efforts would have went largely unnoticed if he decided to release such a documentary a decade earlier; but the natural disasters of the years leading up to its release found a more receptive audience. The 2004 disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow detailed a fantastical account of the effects of global warming on the world, and not only drew attention to the issue of global warming, but became the highest grossing movie ever filmed in Canada. Additionally, between the tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the viewing public became open to the idea of global warming as a cause of natural disasters around the world--this lead to an increased awareness in America and other developed nations, as well as lifestyle changes to match. This is a perfect example of a successful use of kairos. Al Gore's message continues to flourish, while perhaps in an earlier time, he would be dismissed as a fanatic (not that some have not tried to do so, a la George Bush).

Al Gore communicates the immediacy of the issue by choosing to detail exactly where the world will be in as soon as 50 years. Due to important documents, such as the Kyoto Protocol, remaining unsigned,  pollution will continue to skyrocket, and glaciers in several national parks will cease to exist in as soon as ten years.

ARCS mentions the consideration of interests, which is one of the most important factors working against the Kyoto Protocol at the moment. Republicans and corporations represent a particular interest; since cutting back on emissions will affect the cost-effectiveness of several businesses, and limit several elements of "free-market." Al Gore, as a Democrat, represents the interest of his party and of his personal views, with many viewers interpreting his delivery on the subject to be a power-play for future attempts at office. I represent a certain interest in deciding to choosing to write about this topic, and my subtle bias against the views of corporations reveals my inclination toward Leftist politics. Each individual interest affects the arguments we make for or against Al Gore's film, and other such topics of controversy in America. 

ARCS, Chapter 1

I am absolutely thrilled to see Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students (ARCS) address the fact that modern media fails facilitate proper discourse between politicians anymore. I actually find myself amazed that I was unaware that Jon Stewart is primarily responsible for the downfall of Crossfire, and I can't help but cheer when I watch his response to the empty words of the hosts on the now-deceased show.

     

Jon Stewart kicks some ass on Crossfire

A large part of the modern American media is guilty of the same sins. The Fox Network manages to deliver, in large part, a slew of conservative "discourse" (I say this loosely), without succeeding in actually saying anything at all. There is no real news network that actually manages to state clear facts and allow for productive debate--no one to hold actual politicians accountable by asking tough questions to actually keep the politicians "in shape." Jon Stewart demonstrates what should be happening in interviews--deviation from a script, allowing those in question to actually have to demonstrate ability.

I am also in absolute agreement with the section of ARCS that discusses the ownership of opinion. The linking of opinions to identity continues to undermine effective political conversation by reducing thoughts and beliefs to a simple generalization. If I were to express my frustration with American media, coupled with my irritation that it withholds vital information, I might be dismissed as "another conspiracy theorist," and my words no longer hold validity with a listener.

I cannot imagine a time in which logical assertion is not valued as an effective way to make an argument. Factual information and testimonies are valued not only in rhetorical exchange, but in our justice system as a means to establish guilt or innocence. The frustration that comes with arguing with a person that insists on avoiding facts is absolutely mind-blowing, and pondering that as a standard for discourse is supremely entertaining.

Patiently Waiting

My textbook has not yet arrived, and it's only a matter of time before I fall desperately behind.

This is my desperate plea to the gods of textbook delivery: "PLEASE, HURRY UP."