Trackback Ideas

For my trackback composition, I'd like to continue discussing cultural rhetorics by tracking back the evolution of comparative rhetoric.  This topic may be too large to completely cover in the trackback composition, but I'd like to use this opportunity to learn more about the study of other rhetorical traditions.  I've begun compiling a list of potential rhetors who have contributed to the study of comparative rhetoric or it's beginnings as contrastive rhetoric, but some of them do not specifically elaborate on the concept explicitly.  With this in mind, I plan to discuss how the work of each rhetor has contributed to the evolution of comparative rhetoric from contrastive rhetoric.  Below is a list of rhetors that I'm considering including in my trackback composition.  This is just a start, so I'd welcome any other suggestions.

LuMing Mao
George Kennedy
Ulla Connor
Mary Garret
Vernon Jenson

I hope that focusing on the evolution of comparative rhetoric from contrastive rhetoric is an appropriate scope for this assignment.  I want to look at cultural rhetorics, but I don't want to attempt to cover too much with the assignment.  As with suggestions for possible rhetors, I'd also welcome any suggestions for modifying the scope of my trackback composition.

Shifting our study of rhetoric

Trends towards globalization force cultures, which were previously content with isolation, to continually come into contact with each other.  As a result of this contact, rhetorical traditions are also continually interacting with each other and, therefore, our conceptions of rhetoric must also readjust to describe the rhetoric contained within these contact zones.  With this idea in mind, I’m not even sure if mutually exclusive rhetorical traditions exist anymore.  Is it possible for different rhetorical traditions to come into contact with one another and still retain their mutual exclusivity?  Possibly not.  Take for example LuMing Mao’s characterization of Chinese citizens living in America.  According to Mao, these citizens may embody a rich Chinese rhetorical tradition, but their contact with the Western rhetorical tradition has shifted their rhetorical patterns towards a new rhetoric, a rhetoric that is both Chinese and American.  Although this new rhetoric is both Chinese and American, I wonder where this amalgamation stops.  If Chinese-American rhetoric comes into contact with Afrocentric rhetoric, does the new rhetoric reflect a Chinese-American-Afrocentric rhetoric?  Would this imply an eventual amalgamation of all rhetorical traditions that all humans would embody?  That might seem like a stretch, but as I continue to think about it, I wonder if it really is that implausible.

As rhetorical scholars, how should our study of rhetoric shift to accommodate for  globalization?  Do we maintain that mutually exclusive rhetorical traditions still exist or do we accept that mixing of rhetorical traditions are inevitable?  I tend to favor the latter.

The abundant style

Erasmus’ abundant style seems to prioritize the ability to vary a basic idea into any number of forms; however, before rhetorically expanding on a basic idea, one must also be aware of strategies to compress an idea into its simplest form.  This compression seems to be the most practical aspect of abundant style and can be seen today in argumentation theory.  Erasmus states that one must be competent in compression of an idea to avoid expanding an idea arbitrarily, which is the foundational purpose of argumentation models.   Whether Toulminian or pragma-dialectical, argument theory asks us to simplify an existing argument into the claims and reasons given to support those claims.  In the classroom, modeling in this way allows students to see the structure of arguments in such a way that they will hopefully recognize a variety of ways in which to expand on reasons and claims.

In my mind, Erasmus’ plethora of expansion in De Copia parallels Aristotle’s topoi.  Once an experience rhetor has identified the basic idea that we wish to communicate, he can then use his expansion skills to vary the presentation of the idea and achieve the “magnificent speech of man.”  Although one would think to consider the writings in De Copia as models to be imitated, B/H suggest that Erasmus’ models be used as evidence of a much larger point.  I find it hard to describe the abundant style in the same way that I would describe formal/informal or high/middle/low styles.  Instead, I see Erasmus’ treatise (as B/H do) as more of a philosophy similar to Aristotle’s topics. Fluency in the abundant style allows an effective rhetor to have at his disposal any number of presentation methods for the same idea.  

It’d be interesting if one could model the various modes of style for others to apply in various situations.  That seems like an ambitious task, but it might help in formalizing instruction in some small way.

Contemporary Dialectic Idea

For my contemporary dialectic, I plan to advocate the use of an etic (outsider) approach to the study of other rhetorical traditions as opposed to an emic (insider) approach.  Although I tend to think that both approaches are necessary when describing a culture, I’d like to take this opportunity to delve further into the distinctions between the two approaches and how each one can add to studies on cultural and intercultural rhetoric.  I touched on this topic slightly in an earlier blog post when I discussed whether a cultural insider could objectively study his own culture.  My own interest in this conversation stems from my interest in looking at the shaping of different rhetorical traditions and how they are reshaped in their encounters with the dominant Western rhetorical tradition.

In terms of logic, I’m thinking about using Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric.  Specifically, I’m planning to argue from the quasi-logical definition of the goal of intercultural rhetorical study as it pertains to technical communication epistemology, which tends to prioritize generalizability.  I also plan to use arguments from example by referring to prominent etic-based studies that produce generalizable claims while not ignoring the perspectives of cultural insiders.  Also, the New Rhetoric seems to be more apt for generating argument given that the Toulmin model is geared towards argument analysis as opposed to argument creation.

I’m still working on the finer points of this dialectical exchange, but these are my thoughts at the present time.

Ars Dictaminis

IFor this post, I decided to revise a simple email that I sent out earlier this semester regarding my topic for the expert discussion lead.  The original email is short, sweet, and to the point, but revising for ars dictaminis required the inclusion of other information that was implicit in the original email.I know that I wasn't able to match the curus rhythmic style, but I gave it my best shot.

Original

Hi, Dr. Rice,

I'm thinking about focusing on East Asian rhetorics (Korean, Japanese, etc.). I'd like to get my feet wet in those areas especially after I started reading that dissertation you sent earlier. Would that be acceptable?

David

Ars Dicitaminis Revision

To Dr. Rich Rice, 

By divine grace resplendent in Ciceronian Charm, I David, inferior to his devoted learning, expresses the servitude of a sincere heart.  Many thanks for reminding me of my obligation to expertly lead class at some time this semester.  I must also thank you for sending the dissertation on Buddhist Indian Rhetoric.  This dissertation greatly influenced my own interests inside and outside of this course.  I have set aside time to ponder the complexities of this task and humbly ask that I be allowed to focus my discussion on East Asian rhetoric (specifically the Korean rhetorical tradition).  This area is of much interest to me as a potential research opportunity; therefore, taking time to begin exploring this topic now would be of great benefit to me.  Also, the intercultural focus of the course can be emphasized with this discussion.  I understand that we have previously covered Chinese rhetoric; however, we did not include information regarding other East Asian rhetorical traditions.  Expanding on additional rhetorical traditions can reinforce our class’ awareness of different rhetorical traditions that lie outside of the predominant Western rhetorical tradition.

Once again, I must give thanks to you for providing an opportunity to lead discussion for one class period.  I, your ever-dedicated, always obedient student, hope that you find this topic proposal appropriate for your expectations and gleefully, humbly await your response.

Always in honorable service,

David

Home

One of the most pressing questions that I heard in the short Connect-Exchange video was “how is home connected with identity?”  For me the place I call home is my identity.  In that place I don’t have to worry about assignment due dates, org meetings, grading, or anything like that.  In that place I can just worry about enjoying life, being me.  Home is somewhere where I can truly relax and be my carefree self without a nagging sense of, “you could be working.”  Home is somewhere I need to be from time to time to recharge.  Up until now I’ve been referring to home as a physical space in the Ozarks, but I don’t mean to imply that home is solely tied to a physical space.  In reality, I guess it ties back to an emotional state where you feel comfortable being you in all meanings of the word.

Another question interested me was “what does it mean to be an American?”  This seems like such a simple question, but I’m not even sure how I’d begin answering it.  Is there such a thing as being an American?  I wonder if I find this task difficult because I myself am an American.  Maybe this fact blinds me from taking defining what it means to be American.  I could tell someone what it means to be Texan, but that is only because I have spent time as an outsider looking in.  What seems normal to a Texan becomes abnormal to me, so I pay attention to it.  I may even internalize it as part of my own identity.  In that same vein I don’t think I could define what it means to be a Missourian.  I’ve lived there for most of my life and the norms and I’ve, therefore, internalized the norms and activities of Missouri culture.  This internalization is what complicates my ability to critically define what it means to be American.  

My difficulty defining what it means to be American brings me to another question tied to the study of cultural rhetoric.  Can one study one’s own culture with a critical eye?  Cultural insiders have embodied many of the values and practices of their cultures, but seek to isolate many of these values when studying them.  Is that possible given that the culture given the degree to which culture affects thought patterns and epistemologies?  This observation makes me think that critical study of another culture requires an outsider perspective. Then again, I might just be influenced by my own epistemological background where objectivity is essential.  I don’t know, but it’s a thought that I had as I began writing a response to this post.