I also saw The Angry Professor.

I totally found video from the picket on Channel 69 News’ website. Hopefully the link works. Click here.

Not that this has anything to do with the class itself, but the KU administration is pissing me off. I found a quote by Mark Twain that says, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.” The same thing is true about our sense of pride and loyalty toward our school. We should support our teachers all the time. The very foundation of any university is education. Our teachers are the ones who educate. They are the people that give us the gift of knowledge and allow us to grow as scholarly individuals. The administration's disregard for our faculty is an attack on the very institution that we, as students, have devoted our time, energy, and money in. So, should we be supporting our administration now? Do they deserve it? I say no!

I just thought I would vent to the 6 of you that actually read this blog. Maybe we could relate this to Rhetoric somehow.

The Angry Proffessor on TV

I was watching the 6 oclock news last night, and saw Dr. Mahoney in several camera shots, because the news crew was covering the impending strike at KU. When I saw his face on the screen, I called my daughter Cecelia over and said "hey, that's my profesor!" and my daughter said, "he looks really angry!" It was a sight to behold. Keep on fighting Dr. Mahoney!
Jen

After reading through Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures I was interested by a few points in the book. The first thing that comes to my mind is from chapter 6 "English Studies, Surveying the Classroom." Berlin talks of Freire and how he "sees in the mediating power of language (106)." He went on to say that "While language indeed serves as a means for control and domination, it can also serve as an instrument of liberation and growth (106)." Language, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful weapons a person can yield. It doesn't matter what country you may be from or what language you speak...words are powerful. In the heat of passion a person may yell and scream and say terrible things that could effect you in ways you never thought possible. You may get angry right back or cry. A person's words could also make you physically sick to your stomach. Language can cause great stress in your life. Words can even change your life. My best friend found out she was pregnant last June. When she said to her family and friends "I'm pregnant" our lives changed forever. Even three words like "I have cancer" can shake you to your core because it is life changing. Words can inspire, such as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech or they can cause massive amounts of people to lose respect for you, like when Mel Gibson drunkenly announced that jews were the cause of all the world's wars. Freire would call those examples "codes." Berlin said, "These codes can define subjects as helpless objects of force--economic, social, political, cultural--that render them forever isolated and victimized by the conditions of their experience. These discourses can also, however, form individuals as active agents of change, social creatures who acting together can alter the economic, social, and political conditions of their historical conditions (106)." I like to relate this to that phrase "choose you words carefully."
Going back a little bit in the book, I was struck by something I read on page 39. The paragraph talked about how important a college degree was to have. As we all know (mostly because we are college students) it still is. We have been taught most of our lives that a college degree is the ticket to a better job, more money, and a happier life. At Kutztown all majors have certain core classes that we must take in order to graduate. But we also have those gen ed classes like Biology and some kind of history that EVERYONE has to take. What I didn't know was that "the elective system was created so that students could freely select the curriculum appropriate to their career ambitions. The common core curriculum was simultaneously abandoned--so that by 1897, the only required course for all students at bellwether Harvard was first-year composition (39)." It seems like a fairly logical thing, now that I think about it. Pretty much any job that is going to employ a college graduate will want said graduate to have some kind of basic writing skills, whether it be memos, thank you letters, resumes, or even check lists. A graduate should know how to formulate an idea and be able to put it down on paper logically.
Something I found a little disturbing in the book was found under the subheading "Social Constructionist Rhetoric" on page 85. That theory argues that "each person is first and foremost a member of the community. Thus, any claim to individuality can be articulated only within a social context. Here, the existant, the good, and the possible are determined by consulting the welfare of the populace as a whole (85)." I can understand how important community is, but I still like to think of myself as an individual without having to ackknowledge those around me as making me such. That kind of feels like an oxymoron to me. Of course it also makes sense when I think of that stupid saying coaches use to rev up their teams, "We're only as good as our weakest player." I understand that the populace must be kept happy or at least content, lest chaos is bound to happen. What I refuse to accept is that "the good" can only be found out through the concensus of the people. It's as if the individuals voice makes no difference at all. Hey, let's jump on the bangwagon or else we don't matter! I'll keep my individuality, thank you, because at least I know it's honest and good. I would rather be alone with a true opinion than part of a group with one conformist idea. But hey, that's just me.

We are the Blog...Resistance if Futile

Of the four articles we had to read this week, three of them (Aune, Shome, and Blair et al) had to do with incorporating marginalized voices into the discipline of Rhetoric, but one of them (Asante) dealt directly with a reconceptualization of the discipline entire. Asante calls his theory “Afrocentric,” which does not primarily speak to a black or African enthronement of hegemony, but rather of a new way of conceiving Rhetoric and Rhetoric’s importance as a scholarly subject. Asante chooses “Afrocentrism” to describe a relational way dealing with people and subjects. Rather than seeing academia as a compartmentalized, cordoned-off, ice cube tray of an organized phenomenological structure, Asante re-envisions academia (and consequently Rhetoric) as one organic part of a larger organic whole. This larger whole is namely humanity.
Asante poses that in the scholar’s zeal to be smart, to advance, to distinguish him or herself from her peers, and to definitively break from other elements of the grander social tapesry, that universal human characteristics get overlooked. The fact of the matter is that from John Wayne to John Wayne Gacey, we are all of the species human—from the best of us to the worst of us, from the gendered to the transgendered, the righteous to the infamous, the remembered and the forgotten. Asante points out that in Rhetoric this very simple and yet often railed against, vitriol-inspiring truth, is especially done a disservice. Not only does Rhetoric decide what is legitimate and illegitimate within its own scholarly position, it also cuts up communication like a fisherman chums the ocean. Rhetors decide where the boundaries are, the values of, the intents, the functions, and any number of critical, judgment-generating propositions which de-threads the human tapestry until one thread is seen to be so separate that certainly they must seem to come from different cloths. Hickson, among others, push universal human characteristics off the wall, and then claim to have discovered a mass grave of rhetorical body parts ripe for dissection.
I believe in the humanizing, communication-inclusiveness, of Asante. It strikes me that for Rhetoric to finally stop quibbling with itself and get down to business—the business of finding truth, inspiring minds, and bettering people—the subject must find some sort of Master or Uber Rhetoric which includes ALL MODES OF DISCOURSE PERFORMED BY HUMANS. This means the gays…the women…the blacks…the Marxists…the post-colonials…the cheese and mayonnaise eating prig like Hickson…and whoever else can string two words together in a cogent fashion. Rhetoric does not have to be nice, official, sanctioned, proper, or anything other than communicative. Once this is accomplished, I believe Rhetoric can be seen as the unifying force that it is and then begin to tackle a second goal: coming at one’s thoughts, one’s culture, one’s identity, and these qualities all other humans have in different and hopefully more productive ways. Rhetoric should be about asking many, many, questions, instead of being the tin star of the speech police.
I am reminded of Susan Jarratt’s Rereading the Sophists (Hi Susan, first-time caller, longtime fan!), and her desire to break down the classically inspired snobbery of method, action, and participation that led to over 2000 years of elitism when it came to viewing what human knowledge is or isn’t. “We must reject system-based normalities for those which cut across or rise above specific systems. Communication man by his very nature is a creature apart from the narrow confines of a limiting view of the world” (CRT 557). What Asante poses and I herald is a Master Rhetoric inclusive of all human communication. This might be a system, but I would envision it as a system that includes all others—the way the universe includes everything in it. Only then, perhaps, humanity can begin to examine our similarities rather than to point fingers and missiles at our differences.

For next week?

Hey,
I know that we are supposed to read the ethnicity in rhetoric book for next week (or something of that nature??) but, how are we going to pick groups for presentations? Any suggestions?
Jen

Rhetoric Marx the Spot (Post #2)

Marxist theory has many holes often resulting in undeniable contradictions. Thusly, the Marxist persuasion has taken many twists and turns, branching off in different directions and developing more like an indeterminate religion than a political theory. In Anue’s article, he mentions the common division of study: scientific and critical. Does a Marxist government occur naturally, following in the wake of a capitalist system that will inevitably crumble, or is it something that must be gained through a revolutionary proletariat, or are they interrelated? Aune asserts that Marxism fills the gap between structure and struggle. Even the rigid capitalist structure must be overthrown by an equally powerful movement with its own select governing body.

There are four way in which Aune describes Marxism as filling in the gap between structure and struggle. The first approach looks at Leninism. He felt that the working class alone can not organize a revolution. There needs to be an organizing party, but as history has show, this group of people lose touch with the workers they represent. Then there is the idea that the revolution will come from not only the working class, but all marginalized people. There will be a direct or voluntary democracy and the economy will be handled by naturally accruing groups. Still, this could result in worse conditions that the capitalist system. There is no telling what will arise.

The last two divisions touch on the rhetorical problems of Marxism. How will these views be instilled on the people? One deals with the Frankfurt School, which I agree with whole heartedly. I like how media is referred to as the “consciousness industry” resulting in “a repressive desublimation of aggressive and erotic instincts” (543). Plus, I think it is valid to say that the only legitimate forms of communication are philosophy and high art. Looking at the United States, media certainly has a greater impact on the group mind, while philosophy and art are under attack. However, I see their views as idealistic and thought rhetorical language should ultimately be avoided, it is necessary to keep their main propositions intact.

Though I am confused on the last school of Marxism, it only points out the problems of mass communication and its attempts to make people feel like they are part of the system by buying commodities. It never gives a clear path in establishing a Marxists system or how it should work.

Aune goes on to discuss Marxism as in rhetoric and criticism today. With rhetoric moving from the hands of the elite to a broader community, a new rhetorical discourse had to be devised. “It had to be replaced by a new standard of discourse, one more tied to print and to the initially egalitarian drive of capitalism to find new markets” (547). I find it ironic that “egalitarian” and “capitalism” are used in the same sentence, but it’s true nevertheless. It is the result of our poststructuralist society where everything is rhetoric, where everything thing subjective. In my opinion, freedom from the capitalist machine and the push for a redistribution of wealth cannot survive unless we are grounded in some form of objectivity. Even a Marxist Derrida would say that in order to make a statement, we would have to stop the chain of signifiers at some point.

My First Post of the Day: I hate Asante

I’m going to respond to James Arnt Aune’s “Cultures of Discourse” because the postcolonial article was boring, I’m sick of feminism, and Asante is a racist. But before I start in on Aune’s piece, I would like to rant about Asante’s ridicules article and how it should never have been published. There is really nothing in his article other than a flat out rejection of Western thought. He makes strong statements that are not cited. Here are a few that I plucked from the beginning of his paper: “social science seems near its end,” we have a “limited view of reality,” Hegel argues that society only exists if all men are free “meaning, essentially, all whites,” “we so easily fall into the trap of believing that what is will always be,” we should “place communication squarely in the middle,” “we get strange social science from African-American and Chinese-American social sciences,” “we cannot see the problem,” “they embarrass themselves,” “unfortunately, this means that you probably know very little about the nature of humankind.”
So what about this communication person that has a broad world view endowed upon him through his connection to African culture? “Unlike other profiles of humanity, that of the communication person reveals the human being as a singularly master of all he or she surveys without becoming a dictator over others; although the communication person possesses the power of information, he or she is checked by a creative belief in the human personality” (557). He later criticizes ethnic foundations of criticism but never argues whether there should be some kind of unified base or no base at all. He has no clear focus, makes inaccurate statements, and preaches about a more collective view while hypocritically stating that the Afro centric view encapsulates this ideal. Maybe the discourse he is preaching against has become so prevalent because it doesn’t rely on “a creative belief in the human personality,” to keep in check, but instead uses intellectual discourse that is constantly building upon and correcting itself.
“The methodological posture which the communication field must take is that all sectors of a society and all societies can be explored, analyzed, and questioned on the basis of their contribution to the human personality” (559). Can someone tell me how this is practical at all? This is a great encompassing view for a field as a whole, but this doesn’t work from one academia to the next. So, that is my rant on Asante. I have to go to an honors club party right now, but I’ll be back with a more conducive response to Aune.

Will It Ever End?!

Hey guys. Some bad news. My car was broken into this past Tuesday at Weis Market. Someone smashed in my front passenger side window (in broad freakin' daylight!) and stole from me. All of the text books I had inside were stolen, including the one for this week's post. A little side note of humor though, the only one that wasn't stolen from my car was Ramage. However, I don't think it was ignored for it's content, my cat chewed it up pretty good. So, chances are the thief didn't think it could be sold back. He or she also stole my lunch and makeup! Who does that? Anyway, be careful around Kutztown. What is this world coming to? Well I'm not like most college kids rolling in dough (hahaha) so I couldn't buy a new one. I journeyed to the library but the book wasn't on reserve. It never ends. I'm not quite sure what to do so I'm just going to respond to as many of the blogs that are posted before I have to go to work at 1:00. If there's only one blog, I will respond to more after work. I hope that's alright. Damn you Weis Market! And the Kutztown Police!
The Luckiest Girl In The World,
Justine

Feminine community and alienation in "Disciplining the Feminine"

Hello everyone:) I hope you have all enjoyed a pleasant week off of school. In any event, lets get down to business. (Dr. Mahoney I hope you are enjoying your conference, and I know you will kick some major rhetoric ass while you're there!)

In the readings that were assigned for today, I seriously enjoyed "Disciplining the Feminine" not only because of its unveiling of a white male dominated academia (sorry guys), but also with the connection between the feminist perspectives we all presented on last class. Is a professor's true worth, the quantity of the work that is published? Obviously, I think not. As a mother, I understand the need for women to divide themselves into many areas of life, and when we are focusing on raising families, our work quantity suffers, but the quality does not. In a recent class I had, a young teacher stated that he handed in a 40 page paper, when only a 5 page paper was wanted by the professor. Just because he wrote so much, does not mean he is a better student than most, or even had a better quality paper; however, it shows his lack of a social life and family life. Similarly within the text, the women professors are degraded because of their lower quantities of work after receiving the doctorate. The output that is shown for the men does not necessarily equal the quality of the feminine work; also, as the authors point out, the women profs. tend to write journal articles that are cross spectrum, not solely focusing on what is at hand. Therefore, women build communities in education, not only with those that are like them, but also with those whose discipline differs, which takes greater focus and determination, not to mention more time to fully accomplish a completed work.
The authors, merely in bonding together to create this rhetorical text says much. They are not afraid to build a community amongst themselves, much like Mary Astell and Christine de Pisan insisted were necessary for the true female culture to be able to thrive in an academic setting. The authors quote John Berger who states:
"To be born a woman has to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men [ . . .] But this has been at the cost of a woman's self being split in two. A woman must continually watch herself. . . . From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman." (576)
This quote speaks so much in only a few lines. Women, are not allowed community with one another, because they are confined to the job of waiting on men. She is therefore fractured into pieces (like Bahktin and DuBois state) like the double voiced/double consciousness theory expounds. We as women are self alienating. How can we grow intellectually and creatively, if we are forced into a box/confined space? We are reminded that to be good at something we must constantly measure ourselves against some male standard, and if we deviate either way, we are not longer accepted within the constraints of normalcy. If women always fight against themselves they do not have the opportunity to bond with other women, which allows the men in power to use us as pawns, because we are so involved with our alienation, that we cannot create community. This brings to my mind Julia Kristeva's ( I think) idea that there is no true feminine reading possible in any text, because we are stained by the phallocentric dominated world. Therefore, how can we be judged in the same category in academia with men? It is rather unfair and pointless, because we are two separate entities working for differing goals. When we as women are measured alongside men, we will sometimes fall short, because it is the male dominated academia through which we are judged. Can we ever truly rid ourselves of the maleness in our minds? I think as Hickson et. al. demonstrates, it is impossible.

Jen

response paper

Has anyone heard and/or read about the actual requirements for this week's paper? Did Dr. Mahoney post it and I just missed it? Was there an email? Let me know...

The $1 question

Hello All,
Hope this blog finds you all well. I wanted to bring up something that was in the various texts that we were to read for tonight. Are we as a country too involved with ourselves, as Goodnight points out? I know that other cultures depend on each other more for support and existence. Why do we as Americans not participate with the social sphere of argument? I know one could argue that TV is a way in which the audience can view multiple perspectives, seperate from our own, but is TV a true form of communication? (I would argue no for the simple fact that there is not a two way exchange of informaton in TV). Are we as a TV nation too wrapped up in the individualistic aspect of ourselves to even enjoy anothers perspective from our own? SO Many questions to answer! Sorry, I guess I am in a questioning kind of mood.

Jen

Hi everyone. I wish I could be in class tonight to discuss some of the blog posts that I haven't had time to respond to, but some personal stuff has come up and I can't be there. I am overwhelmed at the amount of material we have had to read and I am wayyyyyyy behind on that so maybe it's a good thing I can't be in class. You guys would be showing me up like crazy. I have never liked Ramage but I have read his book before and thought he was an ass. As I scan back through it, I've found some interesting things that make me think he may not be such a bad guy after all. It's just such tedious writing!

Alright, first I wanted to talk about Bush's State of the Union Address. I think Bush is about the most worthless President we've ever had, so this made me laugh. Sorry to all the Republicans in class (if there are any). Wait, I think I hear the CIA breaking down my door. Wouldn't that be insane?! Rhetoric is killing me. It really is. There are so many fa sits that I can't begin to grasp everything. But at the same time it's all common knowledge. For instance, during the Union Address. It's pretty crafty to have your audience keep clapping after everything you say during the beginning of your speech, Mr. Bush. It keeps the people gungho (I don't even know if that's really a word and if it is I'm sure I spelled it wrong) about what you're saying, even if the words coming from your mouth are pure crap. But the audience doesn't recognize that because there is too much excitement in the air and some people (like myself) just like to clap. But the whole address to the country kept changing. Soon after it began, the clapping became more erratic and spaced out. Toward the end of his speech "the president begins a long narrative, over 900 uninterrupted words, enumerating the evidence of Saddam Hussein's duplicity and evil intentions. In contrast to earlier "sound-bite" proclamations, this applause-free interval frames the passage in a lengthy, steepled silence that implies a rapt audience hanging on every word and lends great weight to the president's words." Hahaha, oh god I love it..."great weight." Wow. I feel awful for the person who actually had to count how many words there were before the audience clapped. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how just because someone else is clapping that you would be on the edge of your seat. I get how a person's ears would perk up, but is someone really going to follow and believe what someone else says just because some jerk in the back row begins a wave of clapping? It's just clapping people. Two hands hitting each other. But it works and that amazes me.

Rhetoric isn't a bad thing. I don't think persuasion is either. It's like that saying "Guns don't kill, people do." If someone wants to use rhetoric in an evil way then that's his or her prerogative. However, should rhetoric fall in the hands of the wrong person, well...it's chaos, it's controversy, it's...the Bush administration! I'm going to get arrested. All I'm trying to say is that rhetoric can be used as a tool to help or hurt. It only takes one person to spoil a good thing. I suppose that's all the anger my body can take for one day. As soon as I get caught up on the reading, I will post more. Perhaps it won't be quite so opinionated. Although, that's very unlikely...ask Dr. Mahoney.

I’m going to try and respond to both Steve and Hannah’s comments by throwing in some of my own philosophy. Comments directed more toward the texts are in my reading response from Thursday. (I hate repeating myself.) This rant/post might sound somewhat distant from what we are talking about, but I will bring it home by the end of this post. So, here we go…

The “perfect” world would exist in a state of anarchy. There would be no leaders and no followers. Everyone would fulfill a role for the betterment of the whole (and consequently the self) without the need of government or religion or whatever (sounds like a Beatles song). However, I feel that people are innately "evil" (or maybe it would be more appropriate to say hedonistic). Self-gratification is part of our nature. If we were born with a blank slate, the world would be full of Buddhists in a constant state of nirvana and we would probably die out from starvation or lack of breading (think about animals, they don’t bread to perpetuate the species, they bread because it feels good. In a way, genital stimulation is Nature’s little pseudo-rhetorical device used to convince animals to bread by appealing to their hedonistic impulses.) If everyone was born with a blank slate or were innately good, where would "evil "come from? The only answer I can think of is the desire for pleasure or at least the avoidance of displeasure.

With that being said, there is a need for rhetoric. Ramage says there are two reasons for rhetoric: to persuade, and to interpret. With the Greeks, the audience was the key to everything, but it was never discussed in much detail. This is where, I believe, interpretations comes into play. Or as Steve put it, “We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. …we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.” Again, there is rhetoric going on in our heads all the time. Unless there was one universal mind, the ideal anarchist society cannot exist. Everyone has a unique sense of reality formulated in their heads based on that which is perceived "by influence, environment, and reflection." Since our brains are not hooked up to one central mainframe, we need to communicate our ideas as efficiently as possible with others and ourselves.

I’ve been involved in many activist events dealing mostly with politics and animal rights in the local area. I’ve argued for better education, civil liberties, and antidiscrimination on my radio show. In the school newspaper, I’ve warned people about slander in the media and the dangers of organized religion. I’ve tried every rhetorical tactic in my power to get across my ideas. Unless people are tapped into my brain and can see the world exactly as I see it, they aren’t going to grasp my message. Through rhetorical devises, I can give people some insight and hopefully influence them to learn more about my cause, to experience the things that I have experienced on their own. This could be something as simple as reading a specific book. Some people simply don’t know and we can change their lives, but some people just don’t care because they are disparagingly complacent.

I’m not saying that people need to do what I say. In stead, they should think about what I say and engage in a dialogue with me so we can learn from each other. However, the problem goes back to the idea of hedonism. I have fallen into the Mahoney circle of despair on many issues. The average person doesn’t want to feel despair. It is easier to surrender their responsibilities to others. This is why so many KU students tell me “yeah, I don’t really care about politics” when I ask them something political. This is why so many students say, “but meat tastes so good” when I tell them about the environmental degradation, health concerns, and inhumane treatment of animals cause from meat consumption.

Since human weakness makes anarchy impossible, we regrettably need structure, government, and rhetoric. If we didn’t have government, black people would still be lynched, women wouldn’t have a vote, and children would be working in factories. Maybe we need to be politicians to change things (Ugh, I know) and use rhetorical devises to get elected, to convince people to vote for us so they don’t have to think for themselves. I would rather think for people than say an Adam Putnam or a Dennis Hasstert. Outside politics, the least we can do is continuing learning and help educate others.

I’ll try to post more about the readings this upcoming week, but thanks for reading my rant anyway!

Don't Fear the Rhetor!

Consider this Quote from Thomas Farrell:

"Rhetoric...is more than the practice; it is the entire process of forming, expressing, and judging public thought in real life" (CRT 96).

This perspective immediately made me focus on Farrell's use of the words "public" and "real life," and whether or not the implication is that rhetoric does not take place within the landscape of one's mind. What I mean in question form is: Does private thought, interior exposition, and the myriad of ways and means that an individual judges and assesses propositions to him or herself constitute rhetorical acts?

If I ask myself 'how do I feel about gay marriage?'--and answer 'well, Steve, certainly the history of America has shown a general progress of giving more people more rights, so yeah...let the gay population have at it.' Then I counter: 'Yes, that may be the case for American History, but world history dictates that marriage has always been between a man and a woman...and thus no-way for same-sex marriage.' Most likely, I would eventually get to the synthesis of being in favor for civil unions and letting the traditionalists keep their sacrosanct word. This faux dialogue within my mind is actually a monologue or a soliloquy...but does it or does it not engage in the same rhetorical flourish that all issues of consequence invariably embrace?

My initial view is that yes...interior decision-making is rhetorical in essence. The processes of thinking seem to have the qualities outlined by Ramage--contingency, persuasion, pathos, logos, and even audience...myself and the implied audience of the world as my 'made decision' will eventually manifest explicitly or implicitly outside myself. I use Platonic, Aristotelian, and even elements of sophist rhetoric to make an informed choice--hopefully the best possible from an assessment of mentally well-articulated propositions. The more contentious aspects of sophistry, if engaged, would constitute mental defect or delusion--relying on racism, bigotry, fear, ignorance, rationalization, apathy, etc. to base an opinion. Contentious sophistry in the mind would cause one to accept errant propositions.

The larger point is: If rhetoric is used to convince others of (presumably) better propositions, then aren't the same techniques used to convince (i.e. decide) things for ourselves?

One last thing. When I broached this subject of mental rhetoric with Dr. Mahoney, he reminded me that what we consider the interior, the private, the personal, is very much composed of what is outer and public. We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. This makes me believe that alone in the dark of night when we consider things grand or small--that we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.

I no longer fear the rhetor in myself or others. Like most things in this world it seems that it is judicious use that leads to excellence. I guess the important message of this post is to urge people to use rhetoric and not let rhetoric ride roughshod over you.

Drudging along

Hello all! I was wondering is anyone found the readings at all interesting this week? I thought they were pure drudgery, and I usually do not say this about anything! I really hated reading Ramage again, although this week it seemed to be the text that I most connected with, maybe that's because of the Sidebars about politics and the State of the Union Speech. I also liked the feminist perspective on "The Taming of the Polos/Polis." I was wondering however, why Sutton uses the Amazons (very male-like warrior women) to convey femininity on a binary level. Shouldn't she have used vestal virgins or some other uber feminine characters to get her point across, especially if Aphrodite (the goddess of love and lust) is its mother? I don't know, maybe I am blabbing.
See you all next week.
Jen

..........

I have been dancing around these questions ever since I started to take a serious look at Rhetoric- you all fell victim to my rampage last week. I begged someone to tell me how to manifest my desires to make positive progressive change in a system that leaves no room for alternatives... I just finished reading chapter three in Ramage (refreshed at how straightforward he is) and am pleased to understand better the dynamics of rhetoric. I am wondering now, if I ought to reconsider my plea to help all individuals become thinking, conscious, questioning individuals- would things really move in a progressive trend if that were the case? Or would it spread a mass chaos of everyone questioning and everyone confused?

I like Ramage's idea that rhetoric in its most ideal world would function pluralistically- representing an understanding that there are no terms to deem one truth more valid than another- that as human beings we would appreciate not the differences but the commonalities among us- I'm wondering if he thinks that we still would have leaders and followers... Or if everyone would lead themselves- maybe that isn't the most ideal...

What I mean to question is whether or not I am right, in a realistic sense, to believe that everyone (if they had the true opportunity [i.e. environment, desire, motivation, encouragement etc]) really would value being a thinking and questioning individual- and if it's even the right thing to push for that? Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that we ought to perpetuate the faults in our system that seem to keep people in the positions that enable our current consumerist trends- what I wonder is, would things really be better if everyone was questioning, searching, dissecting, protesting and reconstructing? Is this society comprised of some as leaders and the rest as followers for a reason? Are the followers content with being told what to believe? Have they seen that they are followers and chosen to remain that way because that is what they want? Or do they just not know?

I was talking with a friend who believes that hoping to "empower" people in the way I have deemed necessary is 1) unrealistic and 2) Not what people want- because people already know they are being manipulated by the media, that the education system is often doing a disservice to our youth, that our government lies to us and then sends our people into the war zone- but they choose to be told what to believe in, what to support- and so to be a really effective progressive leader- what can I do? Get straight myself. Work on being free myself, be that aware, conscious, thinking individual and let MY life represent all the things I hope for others- because essentially the followers are just looking for the next person to believe- the power lies in who they will believe next- If I don't want people to continue to be manipulated by selfish greedy aims- is it wrong to live right, to live free and inspire people to follow because essentially I am influencing them based on my own ideology? I guess I can't be responsible or feel guilty if my aims are pure and positive in their nature, and if they don't believe what I stand and live for then they will believe something else, right?

This is where my whole negative perception of rhetoric is throttled. I have been so anti-rhetoric because I am aware of the coercion that runs rampant in our society- but then again wouldn't I be essentially doing the same thing if I lived as I stated above? Or is that persuasion? I guess I wouldn't be asking people to consider what I aim to represent with my life, my words, my art, my work as the ONLY truth with no alternatives- but help them to see the benefits.....

I'm just continuing to question- and I am wondering what y'all might think about the idea of natural leaders/followers.. Feel free to comment honestly, because I am still working out how I feel and understand all this anyway....

Sophist with the Mostest

I really enjoyed reading Jarratt's book, although, I understand if some of the terms were completely confusing (I thank heaven that I took lit. crit. with Jennifer Bottinelli last semester!!). Most interesting to me was the idea that the sophists rhetoric was everchanging and kinetic (like Heraclitus says that we can never step in the same river twice) while Socrates and Plato's rhetoric is more static, because truth, or the "Divine Truth" is always consistent and unchanging.
Reading Love's Labour's Lost this week really sealed the deal for me in the idea that rhetoric is a feminine art form. In the Shakespeare play, the women are the ones that display the best ability to use their tongue in a witty and persuasive way, much unlike the men who were forced into inaction and incapability for rhetoric. Jarratt says that the language of sophistry is seductive and capable of trickery; this idea also is evident in the play, where the women trick the men, through language and persuasion, into believing their speech after they switch masks to make the men believe that they are different people.
The one really cool thing that I thought was completely hilarious that Jarratt mentions, is the idea that Gorgias had made so much money on teaching the masses rhetoric that he made a solid gold statue of himself, which ties into the idea that I said last class that Gorgias thinks that he is a god (and quite a pompous one at that!).
See you all in class,
Jen

What an awesome book...

The following Jarratt quote says it all:

What I have tried to do through this overview of literary, political, and philosophical backgrounds to the sophists is complicate the historical trope dominating most historical accounts of them.

Sophists 2.0

I logged onto Blogger just to see if anyone read Rereading the Sophists yet, (I’m starting it right after I post this) and I clicked on the one blog link “Tech Sophist” to see what it was. It is some professor, “Dr. Lanette Cadle, Assistant Professor of English at Missouri State University, specializing in Rhetoric and Composition, especially where those subjects intersect digital spaces.” You should really read some of these posts, they’re amazing. Anyway, I watched the video that was posted there and it made me appreciate TIME’s decision of making “You” the person of the year. I think Plato would shit a brick if he knew how influential things like Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace, and Blogger are. You can be a digital Sophist right from your living room. You wouldn't even have to wear out a pair of sandals walking from town to town. Any who, from a Platonian perspective, I think we can already see the dangers of this type of information in relation to identity, ethics, copywriter issues, Truth with a big T, etcetera. Anyway, I’m going to read now and post again after I finish.

The name of the game is...I WIN!

Oh yeah...take that blog! Justine just accosted your ass! Sorry, just checking to see that the blog is working for me. Enjoy the rest of your net experience.

Plato and Gorgias on rhetoric

I believe that Gorgias is certainly a very polemical and persuasive piece that demonstrates Plato's own need to use persuasion to capture and lecture to his audience, to which he wants the reader to understand as well as completely agree with his assertions against the sophists, Gorgias and his friends. In effect, Gorgias and Plato are one and the same, especially in their view of trying to persuade others into accepting their orations as doctrine. Interestingly enough, we do not really know if this meeting of the minds ever really took place, and therefore, Plato is using "untruthful" logic to persuade the reader that truth is of a higher being than flattery. Similarly in Phaedrus he attempts to dislodge writing as an acceptable form of communication, when in reality, it is through the medium of writing that he gets his point across to the masses.

Jen

Kairos Redux

John Poulakos, in his article Kairos in Gorgias' Rhetorical Compositions, gives several definitions of the term 'Kairos' in regards to Hellenic rhetoric. He says on page 89 that kairos is both a rhetor and audience phenomenon--for the first an "awareness" by the orator of an "opportune moment" and in the second a realization by the audience of the "timeliness" of the orator's words. Both orator and audience work kairos together, each playing off each other and (it seems to me) modifying the moment together. The orator must adapt his speech to the tenor of the audience and the audience consequently is continually manipulated by the orator.
Though this appears rather clear cut for spoken speech, I've been wondering about kairos regarding written material. If in speaking, kairos allows for customizing to the moment, for writing it seems far more rigid. Written rhetoric will either succeed or fail according to situational forces far outside the author's control. Does this make writing devoid of kairos? I don't think so. Rather, I think moments, movements, and periods come and go throughout history that continually put a written work in kairos flux--making it more and less "timely" in a given circumstance. Reading love poems while one is in love (or horribly depressed about not being in love) may increase the kairos quality of love poems. Likewise, reading about war in a time of war, or ancient rhetoric texts in the midst of a college class all seem to contribute to a sense of appropriateness and effect of documented sources.
What written items lack is the adaptability and consequently they are at the mercy of the fickle nature of kairos. This implies Art that is said to be great, timeless, or eternal is just fantasy; instead, its value must be interpreted according to the time in which it viewed.

I am getting under way with the readings for the week. After 154 Sonnets of Shakespeare, my brain is very tired, but I am looking forward to another set of writers. ( I thought I should say something at least after signing up for this blog).
Jen

Rhetoric you say?

First, I want to welcome all of you to ENG 430. This is a course that is relatively new to KU. Two years ago, I taught a "pilot version" of this course as a ENG 470 Selected Topics class. This course was developed by several of us in the English Department, in particular those of us whose primary interests lie in the field of Rhetoric and Composition (or Composition and Rhetoric, depending on your leanings--more on this throughout the semester).

Why this course? Well, frankly the department needed it. Rhetoric and Composition is one of the fastest growing areas in English Studies and one that has had a significant impact upon the shape of English Departments across the country (and increasingly, throughout the world). We thought it would be important to provide a course that both introduced students to some of the histories of the field, some of the current developments in the field, and some first-hand experiences thinking and writing from a rhetorical perspective.

So, whether you are an upper-level undergraduate interested in rhetoric (hello to my former students on the list!), a graduate student looking to explore the range of perspectives within English Studies, or someone who needed an upper-level night course to fulfill elective requirements, welcome!

At this point, our class has one major advantage over the last time I taught the class. Due to a mistake made in the on-line registration system the class is smaller than we first expected. Basically, for over a week of the registration period, the class appeared "closed." But alas, this was not the case. As a result, one that stands in stark contrast to developments in other places on campus, our course can actually be a real seminar.

I look forward to a wonderful semester!