Response #16

Through the reading I found that Toulmin to be yet another philosopher reluctant to assume the title of rhetorician. In his work The Uses of Argument, he analyzes Aristotle's approximations of logic, and reveals his own framework for arguments with the interweaving dynamic of claims and data. I agreed with Toulmin in his criticism of the distinction often made between logic and rhetoric as though the two were isolated entities when it comes to reasoning. Ultimately, he shies away from extensive discussions of rhetoric as he gravitates toward the philosophical side of arguments, but there is no denying the impact his work The Uses of Argument had on the field of rhetoric in terms of a clear proposal of how to use persuasive language effectively.

In reading the excerpt from The Uses of Argument I easily discerned the simplicity of the model's presentation that the Rhetorical Tradition referred to. A lot of it seemed to fall under the jurisdiction of common sense, with pointed statements that Toulmin classes in different "fields". I encountered the Toulmin model in my English 301 class and actually applied it in an exercise, so it was interesting to see the model's origin in text form rather than the chart I was familiar with. Accordingly, I thought it was useful to see a full definition of syllogisms because of their pertinence in rhetoric.

The reading also covered Foucault, another philosopher. I found Foucault's concept of "the will to truth" to be far more complex than the Toulmin model of argument. From what I understood, it was Foucault's opinion that discourse a source of truth, while the author, knowledge and meaning stem from discourse; Discourse is the communication of truth via these means. Knowledge is not an effortless continuation, but consistently shaped through active discourse through time. 

Response #15

This week's reading in the Rhetorical Tradition covered the compartmentalization of rhetoric, beginning with its apparent decline at the start of the twentieth century. The waning interest in the field was temporary, however as a resurgence of rhetoric in schooling manifested in broad rhetorical theories spanning ethics, ideology, language and context.  I thought that a distinguishing element of twentieth century rhetoric was the emphasis on creativity as opposed to the perspectives based in the logical end of the spectrum that rhetorical theory embodied in the previous centuries. As the author of RT states: "Students were to express their own meanings, to regard themselves as artists, and to be original in thought and style" (1184). While it is true that this stayed specifically in the realm of elite universities that sought an alternative focus in education, that it was a theme prominent enough to gain recognition lends to the shift in priorities of rhetoric among the higher classes.

Also, I thought it was interesting that the creativity expressed by the students was immediately connected to the field of psycho-analysis in a debate about whether the nature of their writing was purely self-indulgent. Though creative writing was unable to persist as a serious focus of study within institutional settings, it remains an elective to this day- an example of how when a branch of rhetoric's theoretical tree evolves, it is not severed from the field entirely, but merely shifted into a different venue. Whereas in science a theory can be proven wrong, the schools of thought when it comes to rhetoric are more dynamic as is readily expressed in the rapid transformation theories underwent in the course of the twentieth century. Further progress of rhetorical theory is exemplified in the birth of literary studies, which were considered to be more practical than the creative disciplines because teachers could teach the material rather than relying on student self-discovery to produce results. That said, self-expression would reemerge again and again, which in my opinion helps to set the decidedly eclectic tone of this period in rhetoric. 

Response #14

I thought that this week's reading about Frederick Douglass was incredibly striking. I knew little of his personal history and the way that he continued what little education he was able to receive as a slave from the wife of his master was inspiring when considered with the rhetorical prowess he would come to exhibit. Douglass' drive to make a stand against slavery resulted in the influence of The Columbian Orator, a book on speeches and rhetoric, and to this end, I feel that Douglass' contributions to rhetoric should be considered an excellent example of rhetoric's positive connotations, which are largely ignored in society today in lieu of the oft-times critical lens with which it is viewed.

Douglass' skill as a public orator led to much criticism, generated by the unique nature of his public persona which was atypical in the field of modern rhetoric in years past. As a consequence, Douglass strove to construct ethos with his audience, often a difficult and trying feat as many refused to accept him based on his merits because of his background. He had either never been a slave or was not producing his own work. To disprove this Douglass published an autobiographical narrative that revealed candidly the nature of his past, supplying the slave narrative genre with a challenge new addition: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. 

The piece provides a strong voice for the abolitionist movement as Douglass cites clearly that slavery is a direct crime against humanity through the descriptions of his experiences as a young boy. As Douglass says, "I was now about twelve years old, and the thought of being a slave for life began to bear heavily upon my heart." Instances like these round out Douglass' rhetorical skill with his attention to the audience. A large part of his argument focuses on establishing ethos, and he is perfectly aware that he needs to connect with the audience on a human level, which is exemplified through his appeals to emotion and eloquence. 

Response #13

The introduction to nineteenth-century rhetoric was especially enlightening to me. As we have progressed through rhetoric's history, I have had less and less background information on the subsequent periods leading up into modern rhetoric. The Rhetorical Tradition explains the disregard for figures and tropes pertinent to the Classical Period during the nineteenth-century, and focuses on Richard Whately's contribution to the field. His piece, "Elements of Rhetoric, Comprising an Analysis of the Laws of Moral Evidence and of Persuasion with Rules for Argumentative Composition and Elocution" is said to surmise what were the current trends of rhetoric of the time. If anything, I think that the wordy title alone exemplifies a shift from the expressed desire for concision in language between Locke and his Enlightenment contemporaries.

Though Whately was in agreement with Locke's stance on language, he also employed classical techniques in his arguments that I believe Locke would argue only serve to obscure the message and thus keep the audience from the simple truth. On the other hand, Whately discredited the use of emotion as a valid appeal in argument as well, which proves a continuation of the importance of logic in rhetoric's ongoing evolution. 

The nineteenth century also saw the group of who was allowed to be a practicing rhetorician diversify to include both women and people of color as a reflection of the progressively less homogeneous state of North America. This, I believe, markedly shows the way that rhetoric became more accessible over time. Where at first it was entirely limited in scope to elitist white males during the Classical Era who underwent a very specific education, it slowly expanded its scope and the requirements of rhetoric became less stringent- that, and the rise of literacy undoubtedly were significant factors in who could use rhetoric and for what. That said, the minorities who could use rhetoric did not do so without repercussions, as was the case for many African American males who tried to use the art of persuasion. Frederick Douglass was the most notable example provided, as he was at the forefront of the proponents of abolition and produced a significant amount of strong rhetoric during his time.  

Response #12

Chapter 10 of ARCS covered the elements of composition and ornament, going into specific detail on the elements that constitute good rhetorical style: correctness, clearness, appropriateness and ornament. To relate back to the reading on Locke, the discussion on clarity in ARCS focused on the ideas of Quintilian and how a rhetorician did not have to be entirely concise with the use of circumlocution. Circumlocution is the name of the concept Locke spoke disparagingly of his work as it pertains directly to speaking around the point you want to make. It reminded me of his references to liquor and gold and how the loose definitions of these terms detract from the perfection, or correctness, in communication. The term circumlocution I feel is just another word for euphemism. There are various ways that clarity can be obscured in language, such as colloquial and obsolete words and jargon.

Where I think that Locke would rule out the use of these terms altogether, I would agree with Quintilian's stance that there are occasions to implement them, for instance when the rhetorician knows that the audience is generally familiar with field specific terms. Using jargon in the appropriate forum can help to build a speaker's ethos with the audience. In other words, the simplest expressions are not always the most powerful and concision should not always be favored over more specific terms.  

On another note, I also found the discussion of treason to be compelling because it was categorized as ornamentation. I would never have considered the investigation of treason to fall under the scope of rhetoric, but it is entirely applicable now that it was brought to my attention. The rhetorical questions posed to the individual foster a dangerous rhetorical situation in which the person's life hangs in the balance of rhetorical devices such as the antistrophe and the epithet. This made me realize the vast extent that rhetoric stretches in our society that I feel often goes unnoticed because of its translatability into so many different fields.     

Response #11

The Rhetorical Tradition details a significant shift of ideals in the field of rhetoric during the Enlightenment, which reflected in many ways the prioritization of a quest for perfection. John Locke embodies this spirit with his criticisms of the use of rhetoric in learning, and insistences that it only muddies the root of knowledge that credible scholars should be striving for. The debate between excessively ornamental language and direct prose finds Locke on the side of the latter, as in his the excerpt from his work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding when he elaborates upon the imperfection of words.                                                                        

According to Locke's theory, people all possess the same principal ideas and it is only through the filter of language that these thoughts become individualized. In other words, there must be perfection in the original idea and this perfection is obscured through the lens of personal memory and diction. I found this to be a particularly fascinating concept, one that was only enhanced through Locke's discerning between the civil and philosophical use of language. Though Locke was not by any means a rhetorician himself, he did seem to think rhetoric was valuable in its own context. That said, he clearly believes that rhetoric presents the forum for failed perfection in communication because of the way that unspecific language breeds doubt and insecurity in ideas. Civil communication on the other hand is to the point.

I also thought that Locke's examples presented an intriguing array. For instance, his discussion of the words 'liquor' and 'gold' as obscure because of their various uses in language reflect the depth of Locke's perspective. When it comes to perfection, he argues that simple ideas are the easiest to construe through language. This seemed to be common sense to me, and I would question Locke in his conclusions. Is simplicity the equivalent of perfection? By limiting the scope of perfect communication to a base level of exchange does not in my mind present the opportunity for intellectual stimulation. Locke claims that language is abused by figurative speech, but I think that philosophical banter is an essential part of intellectual progress, as it can bring about truly creative ideas. They may not always be perfect, but I would argue that imperfection can be refined and built upon, and rhetoric in this way, obscurity should not be labeled entirely negative. 

A Classic's Criticism: Socrates' Objections To Writing and Its Effect on Rhetoric

Hannah Hollmann

B Condon

360.01

Oct 20th, 2011

A Classic's Criticism: Socrates' Objections To Writing and Its Effect on Rhetoric  


The advent of writing and print have changed the dynamics of rhetoric, as it was known in the Classical period, entirely. In its origins, oral rhetoric was defined as the art of persuasive speaking, and further, the instruction of proper speech construction. Whereas writing initially served as a utilitarian function in regards to trade and recording history, and when it began to be enacted as a way for authors to write down their ideas, the gravity of the differences between written and oral rhetoric became blatantly clear. In author Maryanne Wolf's book Proust and the Squid, she extrapolates some of these key differences while covering the famous ancient Greek rhetorician Socrates' three profuse objections to the written word. As opposed to oral rhetoric, the written word becomes controversial in its effect on rhetoric because of the perceived distance between the author and the reader that lessens the importance of accountability. 


Socrates arguably stands as one of, if not the most profound of vocal critics of written historical rhetoric- and if not that, he was certainly the most eloquent. In Wolf's book, she details his three objections to written argument. The first of which establishes the idea that writing severely limits the accountability of the author because of its inflexibility. While he taught during the fourth and fifth century BCE, Socrates emphasized organic dialogue as the ideal form of rhetoric. The credibility of rhetoric relied on the notion that if a listener disagreed with or needed clarification on one of the points made by the rhetorician, they could ask them face to face and receive an immediate response, thus strengthening the power of the spoken word. There, it would become clear how developed an argument was, and it would continue to evolve for the mutual benefit of those present. Words on a page, as Socrates would argue, only lie there. As stated in his first objection to writing (the inflexibility of the written word), they cannot respond to questioning and are fixed in the moment that the author published them. As Wolf puts it, "The inflexible muteness of written words doomed the dialogic process Socrates saw as the heart of education" (Wolf 73). In this sense, the static nature of written rhetoric versus oral rhetoric renders it less accountable. The author is not physically present, so the argument belongs to a disembodied voice that cannot readily respond to questioning.



To explore the concept of lost accountability further, it can be argued that writing limits the need for the author to be connected in a binding manner to their ideas. Authors do not need to memorize their words, and with the lack of strenuous memorization that accompanies oral argument, the longer the text, the more the distance increases between the author and the argument. For example, while it is time consuming to memorize arguments in the style of the ancient rhetoricians, it is also time consuming to write extensively, and in that sense, it is nothing to write volumes and lose your point in the middle. Especially with the absence of the high value the ancient Greeks placed on the act of memorization through the use of various strategies and mnemonic devices considered. This leads into another of Socrates' objections to writing directly. 


The use of memory techniques among the ancient Greeks of Socrates' time puts a clear emphasis on the distinction of how oral argument was regarded within society. It was worthwhile to memorize argumentative strategies, because they contributed to the effort to preserve and foster collective knowledge. Wolf explains, "Just as Socrates probed his students' understanding in dialogue after dialogue, educated Greeks honed their rhetorical and elocutionary skills, and prized above almost everything else the ability to wield spoken words with knowledge and power," (Wolf 58). Therefore, the lack of memorization involved in writing, as Socrates saw it, denoted underhanded motives that did not have the interest of the public at heart. That said, while Socrates' perception of writing was inherently critical due to his aforementioned points, it is useful to acknowledge the contrasting effect that reading has on the brain.



Along with her analysis of Socrates' objections, Wolf goes into depth on the scientific aspect of how language and reading affect the mind. Reading physical words on a page engages the reader's mind on various levels that elude spoken argument. Written argument accesses the brain directly, whereas it is easier for audience members to disconnect with an orator if their communication is ineffective in evoking the right level of attention. Though there are only one or two authors to any given text, their words may be interpreted thousands of ways by the wide array of the individuals who read it. Thoughts are directly translated into the reader's brain and nuanced by their own personal experiences and associations with the words (Wolf 10). Continuing with Socrates' view, this puts an invasive tint to writing, as whether or not one agrees with the ideas that they read, they cannot refuse being influenced by them to some degree. Hence, written rhetoric becomes something sinister as it seeps into the brain, using the reader's mind in ways that they are unconscious of. The dynamic of rhetoric is consequently altered between one of mutual, consented engagement (oral rhetoric) and the reader's decision to become influenced by a faceless author they have no direct contact with (written rhetoric).     



By extension, an author has multiple variables under his or her control unseen to the reader. When a rhetorician is speaking, the listener has a general idea of why the speaker chose their location and time to speak, and can gain insight into the nature of the speaker's intentions through their expressions, tone, and gestures. On the other hand, there are a lot of decisions made when it comes to written rhetoric that elude the reader. For instance, was there rhetoric behind the author's choice of publication? What was it published for? Was there consent? All of these questions can alter the implications of an argument, and yet, they are largely overlooked because generally readers do not approach a written text from an angle of scrutiny. This point ties back to the overlying concept that an individual cannot be held readily accountable for written argument in comparison to the tangibility of spoken argument. Conversely, the barrier between the author and the reader must be considered in the subtext of the advancements that have occurred in print since Socrates' time.                                                                                                            


Widespread print, which manifested after Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1436, enabled authors to spread their ideas on levels that had been previously unheard of. In the past, writing was generally limited to the narrow scopes in which it was produced and often a laborious process that much of the population did not have time to partake in. However, as Wolf asserts, "The alphabet and other writing systems did away with most of those constraints, thereby enlarging the boundaries of what could be thought and written by more people," (Wolf 65). While oral rhetoric was a skill specific to the elite members of society in ancient times, written rhetoric became available to a larger quotient of people, who did not have to adhere to the rigorous training that classical rhetoricians underwent to express their ideas. Socrates believed that the increased accessibility of written rhetoric, when paired with the inaccessibility of the author, would enable the likelihood that individuals would misinterpret the author's ideas (Wolf 73). Thus, writing becomes more of a detriment than an aid to the learning process; people would misuse the knowledge they acquired because they lacked contact with the actual origin of the idea.                                  


Another effect on rhetoric from the shift to print materialized in the lack of importance placed on memorization and the use of mnemonic devices that were crucial to the practice of ancient rhetoricians. In this sense, Socrates was completely founded in his second objection to writing- the fear that writing would lead to the destruction of memory. Socrates attests to methods that would be considered extremely taxing in today's society. The academies that existed for the instruction of rhetoric in the past are nonexistent in modern society, reflecting a shift in priorities that manifested in the modern proponents of rhetoric. These proponents include arguments that are broadly tailored to fit within a certain framework to be digested readily and easily by the mainstream. The modern age moves at a fast pace, one in which individuals need their knowledge to be delivered promptly and easily accessible, usually with the aid of technology. For instance, the standard televised debate in America features two figures of severely contrasting viewpoints that argue against one another in brief points that rarely stray from the commonplaces ascribed to their specific parties. In this way, the public can easily discern whose side they are on, even if they are only able to view the debate within a small increment of time. This perpetuates the decreased attention span of today's society that Socrates feared. The classical age was the era of oral rhetoric that emphasized the importance and technique of the speaker. Oral rhetoric now bears the negative connotations associated with the deeds of politicians and other significant people in society's spotlight. Rhetoric in the sense that Socrates knew it has lost its forum. 


For all of the faults that Socrates found within the scope of writing, there is no denying the extensive implications that it has had on rhetoric and its place in society today. Written rhetoric is accessible on an incredibly vast scale, made possible by the advent of the printing press, and further so through the continuing improvements of technology and media since the classical era of rhetoric. While it is true that oral rhetoric provides for a dynamic sense of learning, which has no substitution in print, as evidenced in Wolf's text, writing accesses the mind and pushes it to develop in other significant ways, though there is no counter to Socrates' lamentation of the destruction of memory through writing. To surmise, Wolf poses a provoking question: "Can a deep examination of words, thoughts, reality and virtue flourish in learning characterized by continuous partial attention and multitasking?" (Wolf 77). This quote truly epitomizes the contrast between written and oral rhetoric, as it frames Socrates' objections within the modern age.

Response #10

The development of the salon described in the Rhetorical Tradition's section on Madelene De Scudery as a venue of rhetoric was certainly intriguing to me, as it does not correspond with my perceptions of rhetoric at all. When I envision rhetoric as employed by figures of the past it is always in the context of the classical era. The forums are always serious, with direct correlations to the formal education that the rhetoricians received at academies on the techniques to speaking effectively. As it states in the Rhetorical Tradition, "The salon was a sort of adjunct to the French court, or the place to which courtly conversation of the sort described by Castiglione migrated under Louis XIV, in whose presence even the most circumspect and complaisant speech might be dangerous" (764). With the advent of the salon as a forum of rhetoric, the notion that rhetoric can be engaged casually along with light conversation was particularly illuminating as it revealed the progression of rhetoric from the classical period to the Renaissance, reinforcing it again as a constantly evolving field.

I also enjoyed the insight into the career of a well-established woman author in rhetoric. Though she used her brother's name in her first attempts at publishing, she was able to establish herself through the merit of her extensive volumes, establishing a distinct form of rhetoric that the text classifies as "private discourse with public implications" (766). In her eloquent piece, Of Conversation, Scudery personifies Conversation, Transactions and various elements of speech to emphasize the value of well-executed conversation. Her aptitude for salon rhetoric is made clear in the sheer delight she takes in iterating the points that make a truly skilled conversationalist. In her opinion, conversation should be a joy and not the source of stagnation in a room. Wit and poignant discourse that is pleasant to listen to but not superfluous, engaging but not weighted, are evidently the standards of speech that she prizes above all else. Finally, by specifically addressing the audience as "women" and "ladies" she fosters a sense of sisterhood, that I would imagine was generally unmatched during the Renaissance.     

Response #9

The subject of the reading in ARCS evaluated the value and purpose of extrinsic proofs in rhetoric. Extrinsic proofs were described as testimony and facts that are often considered to be beyond reproach in legal cases in society today. I thought that the skepticism with which some ancient rhetoricians handled these proofs to be extremely wise, and certainly I agree that extrinsic proofs should not be taken at face value. There is too much objectivity in human nature to count on a purely empirical stance in cases that very well could have excited a number of emotions and experiences in the witness. The various examples featured in the chapter exemplify this point, such as the Supreme Court case dealing with hateful speech that involved a burning cross. Controversy to such an extent is unlikely to merit emotionless testimony from witnesses directly involved in the happenings.

The reading also defined the difference between community and proximate authorities, which was a new concept to me, though I feel that it was simply relabeling certain people in society in a rhetorical lens. Community authorities wield a high level of ethos that make them credible in the context of a specific community, and proximate authorities are eyewitnesses to certain events. Proximate authorities are directly related to the aforementioned legal cases in that they are the ones who provide testimonies. I think that it is a mistake to take such testimonies at face value, without giving any consideration to possible biases. To me, the priority placed on empirical evidence, and the general understanding that it is usually without reproach in America's court system today is not the most pragmatic manner to deal with cases. All evidence should be extensively evaluated.

The notion of empirical evidence as absolute leads into number 3 of the rhetorical activities in the chapter as it relates to biased arguments. 3. The example argument of "I'm a Catholic so I should know the Catholic meaning of abortion" lends unmerited weight to the idea that just because an individual fits within a certain distinction they automatically assume all of the knowledge and standpoints of that group. I feel assumptions of this nature are unrealistic and can lend a positive or negative advantage to a person depending on the situation because they do not have to define their arguments themselves. The ancient rhetors would undoubtedly refute such arguments for lacking clear rhetorical values. 

Response #8

The discussion of humanism featured in the introduction to Renaissance Rhetoric was, I felt, a fascinating development in rhetoric's history. The struggle between scholasticism and humanism exemplifies rhetoric as a consistently evolving field with numerous philosophic approaches. For instance, a parallel can be drawn between the tension created between the Asiatic style and the Atticus style of rhetoric. Like language, rhetoric can be approached from a number of different directions and I think that the competing ideals reflect the extent to which rhetoricians engaged wholeheartedly with their subject. There is no single cut and dried formula that exists where rhetoric is concerned, and while this provides freedom for individuals to cultivate their own ideas, it also establishes a platform for debate. This, I believe, is key to why rhetoric is such a nuanced, hard to pin down in a single thought, subject. It is dynamic, and changes with the input of the minds that contribute to it, just as diction various from person to person.

On another note, Petrarch's embodiment of the ideas of Renaissance Rhetoric was essential because they challenged what was become a fixed and arguably limiting way of practice in rhetoric: Scholasticism. Petrarch's humanistic approach to classical rhetoric made it possible for individuality to take root once again, whereas Scholasticism confined scholars to specific guidelines in which originality could only stagnate. Scholasticism, in its seemingly misguided approach to Aristotle reflected the lack of focus on style and stride toward the favoring of logic and science in intellectual thought that will take hold again after the period of Petrarch's humanism.  

Also, I found it interesting that Petrarch was not able to find a teacher to educate him in Greek so that he might read the classics himself. I think he was valid in wanting a full, primary understanding of the classics in order to construct his own ideas with the forefathers of rhetoric at their base. Why was Petrarch unable to find a teacher fluent in Greek? The text also states that intellectuals proceeding Petrarch voiced this same desire, also in vain. I wonder if Petrarch's ideas would have been significantly influenced if he had been able to learn Greek to utilize in his studies, and what profound effect, if any, this would have had on the concept of Italian Renaissance humanism.      

Imitatio: Reflection Essay

Hannah Hollmann

360.01

B Condon

Sept. 27, 2011

Imitatio Reflection

After undergoing the various stages of this assignment, I learned first hand that rhetoric, especially in the manner that the ancient rhetoricians employed it, has a lot more to it than writing and memorizing speeches. Oration is an art form; the various tropes, schema and language are the brush and the paints, and a particularly effective communicator can thusly be equated to an accomplished artist. Though much of the framework for how to write a speech is presented to the would-be rhetorician in the various works of Aristotle and other ancient rhetoricians, there are certain nuances to the processes that cannot be conveyed through text on a page. The first example of this would be the manner that the words are translated from the page through the means of performance. 

                                                                                                                      

For instance, when it comes to the actual execution of the speech, I learned through my experience with step two of the assignment (actually presenting the speech) and watching peers do the same, that a mastery of public speech is attained on a varying individual basis. Picturing yourself in front of a room full of people speaking naturally is the ideal case scenario, but it doesn't always work out that way. When it was my turn to present, I was convinced that I would do horribly. I thought I would choke, and my hands shook, but I ignored these reactions and went on with the speech. There was an element of comfort to be found in the notion that I was reciting my own words, and there were no surprises for me to stumble on, resulting in the verbal train wreck I was convinced would occur at some point. All of this considered I was surprised that the speech giving turned out to be easier for me than the actual process of writing it.                                  

For Step One of this assignment, it was difficult for me to select a speech to analyze because there were so many options available. I wanted to do something that would be challenging, but also make use of what I enjoyed and felt most comfortable with. Initially, I debated between the respective works of Cicero and Plutarch, but came to find that these speeches were not as accessible as the ones I found in The Iliad. I struggled with finding ways to adapt them to a modern subject, whereas with Agamemnon's speech the topic came naturally. The element of drama in Homer's words was more inspiring imitatio material than the meticulously sharp arguments of say, Cicero.
                     
The speech I selected for this assignment derived from Book Two of Homer's The Iliad. Delivered by King Agamemnon, the speech follows a council meeting and culminates in Agamemnon's insistence that the time has finally come to surrender because the Achean troops are much stronger than he anticipated. In adapting the topic to a modern situation, I chose to address the class as prominent figures in literature- but in lieu of assuaging their grievances against being forced to give up conquering Troy as a lost cause, I targeted Stephanie Meyer, the author of the Twilight books and her subversion of readers. In essence, Twilight and all of its product placement and attention garnered was the enemy due to the way it has particularly captivated the younger crowd. The encompassing nature of this pop culture phenomenon was equally equated to an unbeatable enemy in opposition to more substantial fiction in terms of my speech, and best utilized the tone of Agamemnon's delivery.                                               

           

The strength of Agamemnon's rhetoric lies in his consistent use of ethos appeals. Though he is king, he puts himself on the same level as his men with the use of "we." Further, he emphasizes that he has their best interests at heart by bringing up the families that are waiting for them at home. Though he was convinced that they would be victorious against the Trojans, he has come to see that there is no hope of bringing down Troy's walls, as he puts it: "They thwart my wish to smash down those sturdy walls of Troy." (57-58) He explains regretfully that the gods played a cruel trick in assuring him success when there was none to be had. Yes, the admission comes nine years into battle, but Agamemnon is earnest in his final call to retreat. By these means he delivers a speech that would greatly appeal to men who probably felt the order was a long time coming.   

                                                                                                                      

Additionally, the rhetorical stylistic device of an anastrophe is employed throughout Agamemnon's speech. Multiple times, phrases are presented in unusual wording, contributing to the flow of language and adding to Agamemnon's effectiveness as a rhetorician. In my own version of the speech, I sought to recreate this effect and took care to mimic Agamemnon's syntax. That said, where I took the most care in mimicking the rhetorical devices present in the original speech was in his various proclamations to the troops. Like Agamemnon, I attempted to make striking addresses to the audience, which I felt echoed the ethos that was established in Homer's work. For instance, Agamemnon begins with: "You Danaan warriors, comrades, companions of Ares, god of war, Zeus has entangled me in some really serious foolishness." (1-2). My own version went as follows: "You, literary titans, classics, members of the elite literature canon, Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen- Stephanie Meyer, creator of Twilight has delivered us an unforeseeable blow." The parallel I believe was just as effective in practice as it was on the page, and it was by paying close attention to Agamemnon's stylistic devices and really getting a feel for the words and how I imagined they would be delivered that I truly found myself engaged with the assignment.  
                                                                                                                                 
Overall, this assignment gave me a newfound appreciation for the accomplishments of the ancient rhetors. Above all I learned firsthand that practicing what you preach is invaluable when it comes to effectively speaking to an audience.  

Response #7

The collective readings today were an interesting dynamic. On one hand, the Rhetorical Tradition discussed ars dictaminis, the art of letter writing, which emphasized how seriously letter composition was taken during the medieval period. Due to low rates of literacy, there was a lot of gravity behind the written word, and I found the prevalence of works outlining how specifically to structure an effective letter to be unusual, especially compared with the almost complete disregard personal letter writing is treated with in modern society. Personally, I love writing letters and find it a great way to keep in touch with my friends out of state and out of the country. Currently I feel that letters are significant to most people as only bank statements and official notices. This does correspond with the business aspect of letters as they were present in the medieval period, however, ars dictaminis as it existed as a noted form of rhetoric has faded from the public forefront.

On the other hand, the chapter of ARCS covered emotional appeals that covered a completely different aspect of rhetoric than that posed by the art of letter writing. Though Anonymous did elaborate the use of establishing goodwill in order to evoke a certain response from the reader, the emotional appeals in chapter 7 are of a different variety. Number 4 in the rhetorical activities brings up the use of fear by advertisers to compel consumers to purchase their product, and there is no shortage of examples. I'm always reminded of Michael Moore's quote about how we live in a "nation of fear", and I have to say that I agree. I remember a commercial for a disinfectant that showed a child's hand reaching in slow motion to grab a phone that was covered in green germs that only the audience could see, which directly targets the mothers in the audience because the advertisers seem like there was just enough time to reach out and smack the child's hand away, pull out a can of disinfectant and sanitize the phone before the damage could be done. This ad aired repeatedly during the mid-afternoon on stations with soap operas and talk shows when this specific audience would be most likely doing their chores and susceptible to the ad's message. This example is one of hundreds reiterating the notion that advertisers know exactly how to make the most out of emotional appeals, and who their target is. 

Response #6

Boethius was described as an important rhetorician who, ironically, did not place a high value on the study of rhetoric. In his piece "An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric" his tone is reminiscent of the host of a nature documentary, watching rhetoric from afar. He is clinical and quick to point out the shortcomings of the field, as he makes it clear that rhetoric takes more diligence than skill. He does not laud himself as a teacher, and instead of providing examples on how to incorporate constitutio into speech, he briefly glosses over the obvious details in his impersonal overview. To me, it was obvious that Boethius was not deeply invested in rhetoric, as this comes across in his taxonomic approach to the "species of rhetoric".

The important lesson to learn from Boethius I felt, was that the whole is as influential as the sum of the parts. For instance, if the delivery, style or arrangement is off, the oration will suffer because it is impossible to properly cover such vital flaws when the audience is watching the orator's every move. Should one of these categories of the rhetorician's speech be lacking, the effect would be far less persuasive. This notion sheds light on the idea that while rhetorical speech is complex in definition, there are very basic needs, that could almost count as common sense, that must be satisfied in order for success. For instance, if the orator speaks too softly, this would be a demonstration of poor delivery which would greatly detract from the sum of the speech's parts. In essence, the intermingling components of spoken rhetoric can be likened to a stack of blocks, each dependent on the other- should one come loose, it is likely that the entire stack will fall. Execution is key to oration, and I feel that this makes it far more difficult than written argument where one can carefully formulate and structure their ideas as opposed to having to represent themselves through all of the various "species" that Boethius details. While Boethius does not convey an intimate relationship with his subject, he provides the reader with a useful summary of the essential parts of rhetoric.  

Response #5

Ethical proofs are explored in Chapter 6 of ARCS, and the point that I'd like to focus on is the notion of the rhetorician "securing goodwill". My feelings on the subject are mixed because while it is certainly important that the rhetorician be conscious of the way that he or she presents themselves to the audience, it seems almost underhanded. The rhetorician is not showing their true selves, but a persona they believe will evoke a desired response from the audience. In other words, like the speech itself, the character of the speaker is yet another aspect to prepare- rarely impromptu and hardly an organic representation.

To clarify on this further, I say that personally I don't like taking things at face value so I am generally mistrustful of public speakers. There is always their personal incentive to consider: why are they giving the speech, what do they have to gain from speaker, who truly benefits, etc. In the case of politicians, I feel they are usually speaking to meet their own ends first and foremost. Of course, the speaker may truly be genuine in their motives and speech, but even in these cases I feel there is careful consideration taken in assuming the correct persona. Even the chapter's title of the section "securing goodwill" implies that goodwill is something to be taken and held firmly.

I realize that establishing credibility is a necessary part of rhetoric, but I guess I struggle with the fact that the rhetorician is separate from the persona assumed for a given speech. They are not presenting their true selves and it is highly probable that the persona was either an exaggeration or almost entirely fictional. As ARCS states in reference to establishing goodwill by obviously demonstrating care toward the audience, "Of course, this ploy works only if audiences do not suspect ulterior motives on a rhetor's part" (p. 212). The word "ploy" is completely appropriate for the subject matter. There is just something that strikes me as completely phony about clear attempts to pull at the audience's heartstrings, a theme that is highly prevalent in advertising, coming in the form of crying puppies, tender moments with loves ones, and babies- all of them serving as tactics intended to sell a product. 

Response #4

This week's reading delved into what I felt was the mechanics of rhetoric. In the RT, I learned that Cicero specialized in legal oratory, what I classified according to Aristotle's system as forensic speech. It was further stated that ethos is essential to winning cases, and I think that is a concept that holds true to this day. There is a vast emphasis placed on appearances, and how the audience perceives a rhetorician is crucial to their success in argument- especially in a court setting when a jury is being addressed.

The aforementioned mechanics came in the form of the ARCS chapter's covering of logical proofs, all of which I was familiar with to an extent. It was useful to refresh and analyze my chosen speech for the components illustrated, from the easily spotted similes and metaphors, to maxims and enthymemes.

To return to RT, the section on Cicero brought up the debate between two styles of rhetoric: Asiatic versus Atticist. Upon learning of the differences between the two groups, I thought it was interesting that Cicero refused to associate himself with either, even though he was sometimes categorized as Asiatic, which would detract his standing as a viable rhetorician in the eyes of others. This struck me, because while the Asiatic style was faulted for overflowing with ornamentation and losing sight of the argument in the process, I think that the incorporation of stylistic tools such as similes and metaphors renders speech more compelling and are likely to hold an audience. That said, I have not personally studied Asiatic style so my opinion on the matter is broad, and I do think there is an extent where a rhetorician can be excessive to the point that the argument loses its strength and is buried beneath elegant language. The trick, I think, is to find a balance between the two purported styles, Asiatic and Atticist, where firm logic is aided by stylistic devices. Ideally, the rhetorician should be exercise eloquent conviction without being dry.   

Response #3

Aristotle's prominent feature in both reading selection elaborated his various methods of rhetoric and its application. Though I was already familiar with his penchant for taxonomy, and his division of rhetoric approaches into ethos, pathos and logos as well as the different categories of speech, I was not aware that he divided rhetoric into artistic and inartistic. In my own personal argument style I feel that out of the ancient rhetoricians that Aristotle has the most draw because I favor logical appeals and tend to be skeptical of appeals to pathos and ethos. It is stated in RH that Aristotle's system that pathetic and ethical appeals are viewed as being practically disposable- personally I wouldn't go that far as to completely discredit them, but I do think that the strongest arguments are based in attempts to prove empirical facts.

In the section of ARCS that discussed commonplaces, I was intrigued by the explanation because as I understood it, commonplaces are generalities distinct to an ideology. Further, that people "subscribe" to them unconsciously was questionable to me. A description denotes a long-term commitment, and I think that people are usually aware of what they believe to be true if they are to be considered a subscriber to the idea. In my perception, commonplaces are enigmatic, because they can shift over time as individuals adopt or abandon them. I don't think that people are static in character or belief. Yes, certain generalities will always be true for certain groups, but the example of patriotism among Americans presented by the authors was subjective. No one can control where they were born, and is patriotism to be assumed of every American based on a factor they cannot control? I did like that there were two different versions of patriotism to get an idea of the generalities. Also, I thought that the discussion of political correctness was provoking, and generally agreed with the sense that it is a topic that deters free speech because it inhibits people from stating their true opinions. I think that the learning environment of the ancient rhetoricians who placed an emphasis on the importance of opinions contributing to knowledge must have been much more stimulating than the attitudes present in modern day classrooms.  

Response #2

In this week's reading in ARCS the stasis theory was explained in depth. I thought it was interesting to reflect on the differences between the mindset of arguers of our modern day as opposed to that of ancient rhetoricians. In a previous class discussion, we addressed the notion that argument was seen as an art form, and opinions were given far more credibility than they are now. This can relate to the stasis theory, because it evidences that the priorities have shifted over times. Where ancient rhetoricians took the issue as a mutual point to spur the argument, it can become, as the text mentions, an immovable point of contention from which no common ground can be established, thus leading to violence rather than spoken argument (ARCS 104). I feel that people are less likely to entertain the views of another side in present day because they are so fixed in their own views that they do not consider that other opinions are valid and focus entirely on making their side heard.

The example that ARCS uses in this chapter is the issue of abortion. The matter of abortion is certainly one that creates tension between opposing groups and paired with the stasis theory, it seems to me to be a formula for disaster. I do think that the stasis theory is useful in the sense that a rhetorician may fully establish their opinions through the implementation of questions that analyze their own positions as well as the points that the opposition might raise. However, in a public forum, with an issue such as abortion that has two polar sides and a lot of passion, I am not convinced that the stasis theory would be entirely successful because the emotion involved would decrease the amount of patience for the four questions. In other words, I think it is better to present a salient argument and be prepared to counter to the best of the rhetorician's abilities. The stasis theory, to me, is better suited to issues of policy or theory not as convoluted as high-tension issues such as abortion. To best apply the stasis theory to abortion, I think it would succeed better on paper, as denoted by the written example presented in the chapter, rather than orally.