Hannah Hollmann
B Condon
360.01
Oct 20th, 2011
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment