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.