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.