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.