In Ch. 1 Borchers identified the important characteristics
of rhetoric as the following:
- Rhetoric is symbolic
- Rhetoric involves audience
- Rhetoric establishes what is probably true
- Rhetorical theory is inventive and analytic
When I first began studying rhetoric, I was in love with the
idea that language or meaning making could be formalized. Maybe it’s the engineer in me, but I was fascinated
with the notion that we simplify communication to a sort of equation. For example, we tend to look at writing as a
formalized process: identify your audience and purpose, analyze your audience
to determine the most effective method of communication, compose your first
draft, and revise, revise, revise. Although
the analyze your audience and determine
the most effective method of communication part of the process is
deceptively difficult, we tend to treat it like any engineering process (i.e.
inputs go in, outputs come out). After accepting this, the primary task becomes
understanding how the inputs get changed to outputs or the effect that
rhetorical choices have on an intended audience. Rhetoric made sense to me this
way.
Fortunately, I’ve come to the light and realized that although
simplifying rhetoric to a process of inputs and outputs is helpful, it might
not be the most inclusive view of rhetoric.
Readings like Ch. 9 from Borchers helped me get to this
realization. Of course I had been aware
of the ways that culture influences rhetoric, but I had never seen the process
laid out in such a way as in Borchers. I’d
never even considered how Western rhetoric tends to colonize different
perspectives or how we as instructors can sometimes colonize the rhetorical
strategies of students towards an ideal Western philosophy. I was specifically struck by the inclusion of
harmony and spirituality in African rhetorics.
These are two things that I would have never considered a part of any
rhetorical tradition, but therein lay the beauty of my realization. Although Western rhetoric is the dominant
rhetorical philosophy, it is not the only (nor should it be the only) philosophy
we acknowledge.
After reading this week, I learned a major lesson. Cultural rhetoric is what really pumps me up. My very recent decision to focus on
non-Western rhetoric was reaffirmed and I can’t wait to get more involved in these
kinds of studies.
Have you started filling out the word file on terms? The brief glossary at the end of each Borchers' chapter might get you started. I like to start with a triangle to explain language and communication. Western rhetoric is most definitely a colonizer. I'm experiencing that here in India, where I'm seeing ways that rhetoric can be effectively conveyed through passive rather than active voice (we always emphasize the later). Or, through circular or narrative reasoning rather than thesis up front. Does thinking about rhetoric in a mathematical way help you focus on the characteristics of rhetoric? You might look up the impact of Pythagorus on Plato.
ReplyDeleteMy introduction to cultural rhetoric was unconscious. It wasn't until I started TC and philosophy classes that I realized just how differently communication appears, once you actually acknowledge it's not the same as your daily interaction. The Afrocentric model really surprised me - not that it didn't make sense, but *then it did,* if you get what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteI am curious what you all think about how we should define "audience" in the college classroom. Simplifying the scope for ease of discussion, let's consider how we might have 30 students in the class with a variety of prior work and communication experiences, different countries of origin, and different proficiencies for communicating in English. How does the teacher define "audience" in this situation? How can a teacher develop course materials that will reach all of these students? I'm not sure audience can be defined so granularly.
ReplyDeleteI have always had an interest in cultural rhetoric, but like you I found the presentation in chapter 9 gave me a new perspective on the subject. I never really thought about the different frameworks that exist for analyzing and understanding rhetorics from other cultures. I tended to think in terms of western culture and used frameworks that compared other cultures in western terms.
ReplyDelete