Audience, Harmony, and a Point of Contention.

In our survey of rhetoric thus far, we have seen a variety of themes: morality, justice, knowledge, delivery, proofs, etc. It was only a matter of time until we finally saw an emphasis on audience. I think we have seen this foreshadowed in the work of Aristotle and his work on connections to audience via logos, pathos, ethos, and kairos. This emphasis on audience is particularly evident in the work of Perelman and Olberechts-Tyteca (see pages 200 through 204 in Herrick), in which they define three audiences: self, specific party, and universal. To me, this “thinking through of audience” was important because in considering these audiences there is an internal dialogue that must go on in one’s mind as he or she reconciles the best way to appeal to the audience---sort of a “monolectic” of sorts, which I also think is a testament to Bakhtin’s work (see pages 233 through 235 in Herrick). I also am reminded of Cicero with rebuttals and envision of stasis points—which are each reflective of audience considerations. I think the recognition and use of these evaluative mechanisms in one’s mind is something that Plato would have approved of given that his plays, in many ways, are essentially external representations of the mental processes that one must work through in working arguments out (negotiations) and in developing strategies towards audience connection.

A second theme I think we’re seeing in contemporary rhetoric is the recognition of rhetoric’s role in nearly any communication type---even in science, which is something that might not have set well with Bacon; it is a shift toward harmony. Herrick makes this point especially evident in the text (see pages 207 through 214). In his discussion, one piece that really stuck with me is how much truth there is to how inquiry and advocacy go hand-in-hand. If you are starting with some sort of premise or hypothesis, then indeed, you have already laid the groundwork for some form of persuasion. Thus, for me, I took this to mean that there is a degree of subjectivity in all objectivity. Thus, if total objectivity does not exist, I think absolute truth cannot exist (aside from religious arguments/dependent on one’s beliefs), which I am sure would have been an affront to Plato.  I can hear the Sophists cheering as I pose that assertion.  And, if that premise is true, that there is subjectivity in objectivity, then rhetoric and science have to be viewed as companions in order to produce something that is defendable and representative of the perceived truth---they do not have to continue to be viewed at odds as previously asserted.

A final comment that I will make relates to the excerpt from English Composition and Rhetoric, by Bain, found in Bizzell and Herzberg. It was good to finally see the origins of writing modes (description, narration, exposition, and persuasion). However, I do not agree that persuasion is its own mode.  All narration, description, and exposition, have some point, some piece of knowledge to be shared. And, in that sense, because there is something to be garnered--a purpose---I would argue that persuasion is at work in each of the other modes; it might not be as explicit as the "research essay," but it is there---like Aesop’s’ fables. They are stories, but they aim to teach a lesson, and so there is persuasion.  So, I am not currently sold on the idea of classifying persuasion as its own mode. Perhaps it is because of my position of hindsight, but even in looking Bain’s own words (i.e., Part 21 on p. 1148 in Bizzell and Herzberg), he defines a paragraph as something that is “understood to possess Unity; which implies a definite purpose, and forbids digression…”  If there is purpose, then isn’t there also persuasion? Whether you’re writing to inform or entertain, you are still persuading, right?  “Learn this, Enjoy this…”

Those are my thoughts for this week.