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.