Greetings Classmates,
Today I had the good fortune of being able to complete one of my readings for class tomorrow. The second one is still vying for my time against everything else, which I will cumulatively summarize as “life.” Not to worry, though, I will have the second reading finished---and annotated---in time for class tomorrow.
So far, I have read the two introductory chapters for The Rhetorical Tradition, by Herzberg and Bizzell. Though I had trouble keeping of rhetoricians’ names and views straight, initially, I diagrammed things out, and, at least for the moment, I have a working idea of who did what and how. And, moreover, I feel like I have at least some working idea of how rhetoric has shifted over time. However, just to be clear, my current understandings would not equip me for competition on Jeopardy---but maybe by the end of the course? But, right now, I am able to ask more-informed questions and see down paths I wasn’t even aware of before.
The shift is of particular interest to me. I didn’t appreciate the change until I had completed the reading. I knew about the shift from orality to literacy, though. Prior to the reading, I had viewed rhetoric as a lens for every communication situation. And, for some reason, I thought it had always been that way. Until this reading, I didn’t realize that “classic rhetoric” only initially encompassed only three outlets: legal/forensic, political/deliberative, and ceremonial/epideictic; rhetoric was locked into formalized/public modes only (see page 2). If I understand the reading correctly, it wasn’t until the renaissance period in which the term “rhetoric” was formally expanded to include personal discourse—like letters, conversations, etc. (which also coincides with the oral-to-written shift I mentioned previously) (see page 8). Also, if I understand the reading correctly, that is when formalized punctuation marks and grammar really caught on (see page 8)---perhaps adding something new to “frosting” that is “style” (see page 6). Moreover, I had thought only rhetoric in terms of “audience” and “purpose”---I had not considered ideas of “truth” or “knowledge construction” until I read this.
I am looking forward to what I hope will be a 4-course dinner in rhetoric tomorrow night!
Best,
Cris
And Cris, look at the shift today: that everything is rhetoric! I too enjoyed the Bizzell and Herzberg intro sections, though I felt equally backwards with some of the names (not to mention the way I was scrolling backwards with the pdf file --- though I was grateful to have it since my book has yet to arrive). But that's why we're taking this class. As we read the original documents, we'll put pieces together better. I looked up Gorgias because I thought Gorgias was just a document (written by Plato - see http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html). Through the readings, I find he is a pretty influential Sophist. Those details will come with the progression of the class. But just to help sort myself out, I read a primary work by Gorgias (Encomium of Helen). It's pretty short and sweet and now I have a better idea of where to place him in my mind. I would sincerely love to see your diagramming of the rhetoricians' names and views if you'd like to share.
ReplyDeleteCris,
ReplyDeleteReading an overview really helps build a framework from which to piece the remainder of the semester together, but I'm with you--keeping it all straight is a little tough! The ways in which rhetoric can be used in knowledge making and determining truth are challenging concepts, especially with the 20th C guys. I only know enough about Derrida, Foucault, and the rest to know I don't quite understand them yet. I'm looking forward to a stronger grasp of their ideas this time around!
Like Cris, I have found the evolution of rhetoric to be compelling.
ReplyDeleteAdvancements in written structure, such as punctuation has provided a structure to to rhetoric that is not unlike other defining moments of cultural development. When we examine communication, we see parallel events at critical points through history that drive the need for establishing or improving on rhetorical structures. To some degree, I believe that a case can be made that the development of rhetoric lags behind cultural development, yet because of the creation, or evolution, of rhetorical development culture is able to shoot ahead as long as society is not subject to factors that cause internal collapse. The Renaissance is an example. The evolution of rhetoric to include letters and conversations provided the opportunity for the advancement of science by creating a stronger forum for debate, for examples of this I refer everyone to Galileo's letter to Christina, as well as other men of science, involved with the debate over the geocentric vs the heliocentric universe. We see the evolution continue through the last several centuries, and it will be exciting to see where and how rhetoric will change in the coming century.
So, I hope we will spend some time this week really getting into the origins of our modern rhetoric :-)