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.