I had some knowledge of rhetoric before coming into
this class. WRIT 205 was where I first heard about rhetoric and I wanted to
learn more about the topic. 205 didn’t give a clear meaning of its definition (Doug
said the class was an overview of the writing major) – Rhetoric felt like some
great unknown that I wanted to learn more about anndddd that led me into
conversing with Doug about it. All of that led me slowly into the understanding
that I have today.
I agree with you Jared – after I learned more about rhetoric and thought about it more, I began to realize how complex the topic is and I began to understand why it takes people a long time to study it – And even then, they don’t fully understand it. I’m not sure why they don’t fully understand it though – I think it’s because knowledge is constantly changing in this field due to the conversations they have with other people within the field (almost like us with these blog posts). To be totally honest, my knowledge of rhetoric isn’t vast, but I think I know enough to understand why we’re required to study it before we graduate and head into our future careers.
Here is some of what I’ve gathered before this class (that I can think of right now):
* Rhetoric is a conversation and interaction between readers and writers.
* Rhetoric deals with language that could be both written and spoken.
* Rhetoric involves understanding the language (or discourse) of Discourses and Discourse Communities.
* There is never any “truth” of “facts” that is universally accepted because people have their interpretations of what those two terms mean for any given topic depending on their beliefs and values.
At one point during my conversations with Doug, he sent me that What is Rhetoric? last summer to read. When I first read that article, I was so overwhelmed because I wanted to stop and analyze everything until I understood it perfectly. As I think about it now, I think it was also hard for me to read because I wasn’t adjusted to the discourse yet. I wasn’t used to that type of writing. However, when I read the article for the second time earlier today, things that didn’t make sense to be before made more sense to me now and I found that I was able to read it much faster this time. (The first time took me almost all summer – I had to take breaks from it because it was so tiring for me)
For example, I had no idea what logos was – That was the hardest thing for me to grasp, but now I think I understand what it is better now. I now think that instead of using morality/authority of ethos or emotion of pathos to ensnare the reader, logos uses certain procedures/methodologies that the person they’re conversing with are comfortable with.
And speaking of those three terms for persuading the audience …. : The one thing that caught my eye this time around was regarding ethos. If texts are written and spoken, isn’t whether a text or a rhetor moral the same thing? I’m not sure where that distinction would be… I think I remember reading in the article at one point that non-verbal entities like paintings or body language can give a specific meaning to the audience. If a person is doing something that most people in society consider good (like rescuing a kitten from the middle of a highway), aren’t they giving a non-spoken text that what they’re doing is good if that is how their audience interprets it and finds meaning from it?
Wait, unless ….. Does this point toward intention, maybe? For example, perhaps rhetors are intentionally trying to be rhetorical because they’re the rhetoricians within this Discourse/lens of seeing things. If someone is performing an action and isn’t necessarily intentionally trying to be rhetorical (and/or trying to be associated within this lens), would that still count in this lens as being moral?
So much to explore and think about – I agree, Jared, I’m sure we’ll learn more as the semester progresses :).
Jared, by the way, I can/could see part of what you said while you were updating your drafts. I apologize for not waiting for you to post the entire thing – I just really wanted to get this assignment finished as soon as I could (and because I don’t know when Erin will post either). I suppose we can talk about this in class on Thursday too if we have time.
I agree with you Jared – after I learned more about rhetoric and thought about it more, I began to realize how complex the topic is and I began to understand why it takes people a long time to study it – And even then, they don’t fully understand it. I’m not sure why they don’t fully understand it though – I think it’s because knowledge is constantly changing in this field due to the conversations they have with other people within the field (almost like us with these blog posts). To be totally honest, my knowledge of rhetoric isn’t vast, but I think I know enough to understand why we’re required to study it before we graduate and head into our future careers.
Here is some of what I’ve gathered before this class (that I can think of right now):
* Rhetoric is a conversation and interaction between readers and writers.
* Rhetoric deals with language that could be both written and spoken.
* Rhetoric involves understanding the language (or discourse) of Discourses and Discourse Communities.
* There is never any “truth” of “facts” that is universally accepted because people have their interpretations of what those two terms mean for any given topic depending on their beliefs and values.
At one point during my conversations with Doug, he sent me that What is Rhetoric? last summer to read. When I first read that article, I was so overwhelmed because I wanted to stop and analyze everything until I understood it perfectly. As I think about it now, I think it was also hard for me to read because I wasn’t adjusted to the discourse yet. I wasn’t used to that type of writing. However, when I read the article for the second time earlier today, things that didn’t make sense to be before made more sense to me now and I found that I was able to read it much faster this time. (The first time took me almost all summer – I had to take breaks from it because it was so tiring for me)
For example, I had no idea what logos was – That was the hardest thing for me to grasp, but now I think I understand what it is better now. I now think that instead of using morality/authority of ethos or emotion of pathos to ensnare the reader, logos uses certain procedures/methodologies that the person they’re conversing with are comfortable with.
And speaking of those three terms for persuading the audience …. : The one thing that caught my eye this time around was regarding ethos. If texts are written and spoken, isn’t whether a text or a rhetor moral the same thing? I’m not sure where that distinction would be… I think I remember reading in the article at one point that non-verbal entities like paintings or body language can give a specific meaning to the audience. If a person is doing something that most people in society consider good (like rescuing a kitten from the middle of a highway), aren’t they giving a non-spoken text that what they’re doing is good if that is how their audience interprets it and finds meaning from it?
Wait, unless ….. Does this point toward intention, maybe? For example, perhaps rhetors are intentionally trying to be rhetorical because they’re the rhetoricians within this Discourse/lens of seeing things. If someone is performing an action and isn’t necessarily intentionally trying to be rhetorical (and/or trying to be associated within this lens), would that still count in this lens as being moral?
So much to explore and think about – I agree, Jared, I’m sure we’ll learn more as the semester progresses :).
Jared, by the way, I can/could see part of what you said while you were updating your drafts. I apologize for not waiting for you to post the entire thing – I just really wanted to get this assignment finished as soon as I could (and because I don’t know when Erin will post either). I suppose we can talk about this in class on Thursday too if we have time.
No worries! I was initially confused, as I submitted mine and immediately found your response and thought, nobody's that fast! Sorry I took so long to post.
ReplyDeleteAshton~
ReplyDeleteI know commenting isn't necessary, but upon snooping on your post I feel compelled to respond!
Namely, I wanted to discuss the idea of "unintentional rhetoric" in conjunction with ethos. I struggled with the same issue-- if an individual is living their life in a morally upright way, are they "doing" rhetoric (through action) that draws upon the ethos of their given audience? We seems to be tapping into the concept of morality for the sake of applause, versus morality for the sake of the self. So I suppose if an individual saved a kitten, and bystanders noticed and praised him/her, it would be rhetorical through the vein of ethos. But the rhetorical effect would be a byproduct of the individual having an upright heart, and wanting to save the kitten. So, is "accidental" rhetoric still rhetoric per se?
Lastly, I'm considering what effect the presence/absence of an audience has on rhetoric. Similar to the tree falling in the woods/does it make a sound conundrum, if a rhetorical action/text is not received by auditors, does that disqualify it as rhetoric? Essentially, is "unsuccessful" rhetoric still rhetoric? In the Covino and Jolliffe text, there is stress on the effectiveness of rhetoric, almost as a qualifier. Many of the definitions of rhetoric discuss the "art" of given elements-- does that mean if one's rhetoric is sloppy and ineffective it no longer is considered rhetoric?
Interesting thoughts; thanks for writing!
Anjeli Doty
Hi Anjeli,
DeleteActually, I wrote this particular article :). But thank you for replying! -- You have said a lot and class today brought up even more .. I'll try to reply to this in more depth this weekend when I have more time (and if I remember to)!
Thank you,
Kelly Kinney