This week (as well as last week) we looked at True and False Rhetoric. What is it, according to Plato and Isocrates, and how have you seen it in your program? Do not disclose anything that might get you into trouble. But, what is the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs? Let’s find out…
For Isocrates true and false rhetoric demonstrated the going back and forth between the different sides of the issue. He wasn't a sophist like Gorgias who believed that every issue had two sides that were more or less equal, but he did believe in a dialectic. Plato, on the other hand, really believes in Truth and that many sophists use rhetoric to propogate the false beliefs. That's why he demonstrates in his dialogues the weaknesses of rhetoric. Plato, obviously, believes in dialectic, but it's a way to get to the Truth, not an attempt to uncover the two sides to an issue.
[Note: Reading these dialogues reminds me of why I find Plato so annoying. First, to our modern sensibilities, it's obvious he's just setting up straw men in his dialogues, so they don't really demonstrate much except that Plato has some pathological need to demonstrate that there's a right side and he's on it. Or that he only talked to idiots.]
I think the concept that every issue has several sides and that a dialectic helps to uncover those sides is valuable. Also the dialogues demonstrate effectively that framing an issue determines the outcome of the issue even as Plato uses this rhetorical framing technique to prove that rhetoric is ridiculous. Once again, it's a little odd that Plato apparently denigrates rhetoric even as he uses rhetoric to prove his point. If a modern text were structured in such a way, I would clearly recognize it as sarcasm. Because it's Plato, I guess he's just demonstrating his pathological need to hold onto his ideas about the forms and Truth even if he's got to use the techniques he despises to do it.
I know this will sound like blasphemy, but I think we read Plato for history exclusively. I don't think Plato has much valuable to tell us that we don't get elsewhere and better. Reading him helps us to understand where we've come from and why it's taken so long to get where we are, but not much that's very useful now. Gorgias, Isocrates, Aristotle on the other hand, those guys wrote/said some useful things.
And finally I just don't understand what you're driving at about the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs. Could you clarify a bit?
Kendall
Monday, June 26, 2006
Monday, June 19, 2006
Plato
Plato
I forgot to read the blog prompt, so here' s the response to the blog prompt.
Week 3List out as many things about Plato that you know. What does he suggest about finding the Truth, about oral persuasion, about writing, about the value of rhetoric? Also, as we agreed from Week-1, please point out the progress you're making on your final project in each blog post. Thanks.
Plato was a student of Socrates and got his start as a philosopher so to speak writing dialogues, probably based on discussions he heard as a student, between Socrates and other students. Naturally his early writing was probably what Socrates believed, but his later writings were about his ideas.
He thinks the Truth is contained in forms--perfect somethings--the forms get fuzzy here. Forms are permanent and unchangeable. We discover forms through thought alone, because we are born with an innate knowledge of the forms. We must rediscover it.
Unfortunately most people don't know anything about the forms, so they are easily persuaded about stupid things like going to war, electing officials, and putting certain slovenly philosophers with unpopular friends to death.
Honestly, Plato clearly wrote down his dialogues to pass down their wisdom, but since literacy was an emerging skill, he didn't trust the written word. Even his writing is often a speech, a dialogue. He thought the search for truth was a process and writing was too static and unchangeable to really help someone find the truth.
Plato didn't value rhetoric. He felt clever people used rhetoric to persuade others, but he was not above using rhetorical techniques to make his points.
I have done no further work on my paper. Still thinking about how classical rhetoric influenced communication theory and about how changing communication theory should influence our programs.
Kendall
I forgot to read the blog prompt, so here' s the response to the blog prompt.
Week 3List out as many things about Plato that you know. What does he suggest about finding the Truth, about oral persuasion, about writing, about the value of rhetoric? Also, as we agreed from Week-1, please point out the progress you're making on your final project in each blog post. Thanks.
Plato was a student of Socrates and got his start as a philosopher so to speak writing dialogues, probably based on discussions he heard as a student, between Socrates and other students. Naturally his early writing was probably what Socrates believed, but his later writings were about his ideas.
He thinks the Truth is contained in forms--perfect somethings--the forms get fuzzy here. Forms are permanent and unchangeable. We discover forms through thought alone, because we are born with an innate knowledge of the forms. We must rediscover it.
Unfortunately most people don't know anything about the forms, so they are easily persuaded about stupid things like going to war, electing officials, and putting certain slovenly philosophers with unpopular friends to death.
Honestly, Plato clearly wrote down his dialogues to pass down their wisdom, but since literacy was an emerging skill, he didn't trust the written word. Even his writing is often a speech, a dialogue. He thought the search for truth was a process and writing was too static and unchangeable to really help someone find the truth.
Plato didn't value rhetoric. He felt clever people used rhetoric to persuade others, but he was not above using rhetorical techniques to make his points.
I have done no further work on my paper. Still thinking about how classical rhetoric influenced communication theory and about how changing communication theory should influence our programs.
Kendall
Sophists Rule!
Isocrates and Plato
First Plato, I really liked the Plato "graphic novel." Even though I've read all that stuff, except the Laws, before, having everything pulled together like that served as a nice review. And while I'm still irritated that he sent us into the 2500 year walkabout intellectually speaking, it does put his work in perspective from his point of view. He was just trying to figure out a way to create a just world and he thought making a strong case for having wise people be rulers was the way to go. Honestly, I don't disagree with him on that; I'm just not keen on his methodology.
And who knew that every Western thinker for the next 2500 years would feel the need to respond to Plato either directly or indirectly and discuss his stand on Truth and its knowableness. And even now, we've got to take a stand on truth. We've decided, pretty much, that unknowable truth is moot and that truth is pretty much what we, as a group, decide, but we're still discussing truth. Some people still can't let go of the idea of platonic forms. Those people call the forms reality--just like Plato. Perhaps they conceive of reality a little differently than Plato conceived of forms, but like Plato reality is the gold standard for discourse, the thing that gives meaning to language. I, of course, prefer to think of it as just discursive and non-discursive realities reflexively re-inventing one another.
And, it's also pretty cool that he founded a college that managed to survive 1000 years until religious intolerance caused it to be shut down. Is the oldest university currently in operation that old? It's quite an acheivement.
My other thought in this regard though is that perhaps Plato and Aristotle weren't great thinkers so much as popular. Really, perhaps they are essentially the Mike Markel and John Lannon of the classical era and we get so much of their texts because lots of people made copies, not because they were really good--good, but in a middle of the road kind of way. And the fact that Plato's Academy lasted so long and undoubtedly reproduced his texts during that time must have also resulted in promulgation of his ideas even after the Academy shut down just because there were so many copies in circulation.
Just something to think about.
Isocrates
Clearly he seems to be quite worried about the immorality charge leveled at rhetoric that we still haven't really solved. What happens when immoral people develop good rhetoric skills? What about those people that promise to teach good rhetoric skills to whoever can pay? It's a little like someone advertising to teach whoever to build a nuclear bomb as long as the price is right. Regardless, Isocrates definitely engaged in a debate that still rages today. How do we teach the youth so that they can participate productively in the world?
Kendall
First Plato, I really liked the Plato "graphic novel." Even though I've read all that stuff, except the Laws, before, having everything pulled together like that served as a nice review. And while I'm still irritated that he sent us into the 2500 year walkabout intellectually speaking, it does put his work in perspective from his point of view. He was just trying to figure out a way to create a just world and he thought making a strong case for having wise people be rulers was the way to go. Honestly, I don't disagree with him on that; I'm just not keen on his methodology.
And who knew that every Western thinker for the next 2500 years would feel the need to respond to Plato either directly or indirectly and discuss his stand on Truth and its knowableness. And even now, we've got to take a stand on truth. We've decided, pretty much, that unknowable truth is moot and that truth is pretty much what we, as a group, decide, but we're still discussing truth. Some people still can't let go of the idea of platonic forms. Those people call the forms reality--just like Plato. Perhaps they conceive of reality a little differently than Plato conceived of forms, but like Plato reality is the gold standard for discourse, the thing that gives meaning to language. I, of course, prefer to think of it as just discursive and non-discursive realities reflexively re-inventing one another.
And, it's also pretty cool that he founded a college that managed to survive 1000 years until religious intolerance caused it to be shut down. Is the oldest university currently in operation that old? It's quite an acheivement.
My other thought in this regard though is that perhaps Plato and Aristotle weren't great thinkers so much as popular. Really, perhaps they are essentially the Mike Markel and John Lannon of the classical era and we get so much of their texts because lots of people made copies, not because they were really good--good, but in a middle of the road kind of way. And the fact that Plato's Academy lasted so long and undoubtedly reproduced his texts during that time must have also resulted in promulgation of his ideas even after the Academy shut down just because there were so many copies in circulation.
Just something to think about.
Isocrates
Clearly he seems to be quite worried about the immorality charge leveled at rhetoric that we still haven't really solved. What happens when immoral people develop good rhetoric skills? What about those people that promise to teach good rhetoric skills to whoever can pay? It's a little like someone advertising to teach whoever to build a nuclear bomb as long as the price is right. Regardless, Isocrates definitely engaged in a debate that still rages today. How do we teach the youth so that they can participate productively in the world?
Kendall
Monday, June 12, 2006
Sophists Rule!
Week 2: Gorgias
What does Gorgias emphasize? Why is this significant to both classical rhetoric and contemporary teaching? And finally, what are you thinking about for your 20-page paper/project thus far?
Gorgias emphasizes two sides to every issue. And truth isn't knowable and speakable, but that we can get together and decide on "truth." For Gorgias speech, and he does mean oratory, is extremely powerful. It can control people like witchcraft or a trance. And speech doesn't need to be grounded in "truth" to have this kind of control on people. Interestingly he's more than willing to admit that rhetors can use their abilities for bad ends, as he speculates Paris has done; if rhetors do so, they are morally at fault, not the people entranced by their speech who actually perform the bad acts. In the Encomium of Helen, he claims that if Paris used speech to convince Helen to elope, Paris is at fault, not Helen. Obviously this two side to every issue idea not only puts the dialectic in the middle of classical rhetoric, but Gorgias did so while insisting that we can't define truth with speech. So he's married the dialectic and rhetoric not put them in opposition to one another. Of course, later Plato will subjugate rhetoric to the dialectic in his search for truth. I'm starting to think that Plato was just a poor student. I think it's pretty clear that Gorgias believed in a finite truth, but unlike Plato, he didn't see any point in pursuing it. Rather he believed in creating truth through the dialectic and not worrying if it matched the "real" truth. We've sort of abandoned truth today, but Gorgias ideas about creating knowledge are nicely in line with what most applied rhetoricians, i.e. communicators, believe today.
In contemporary thought, we assume there's always several sides to a story. And we frequently use a dialectic format to arrive at some kind of truth that we agree upon. Law courts are an example of this. Most importantly, I think the idea that what I'm going to call the functional truth--the truth we all operate under--is determined and not discovered is huge! When we think of truth in this manner, rhetoricians, i.e. writers, create the truth in the act of writing.
As for my project in this class, I think comparing and contrasting the sophist ideas of knowledge making as represented in texts like the Dissoi Logio and even the Econmium of Helen with Foucault's ideas in the Archaeology of Knowledge would be a great paper. However, it would require that I read the Archaeology of Knowledge again, and it certainly wasn't a cake walk when I read it 20 years ago, and even then such a paper would require some major mental work on my part, and it's the summer and all. I'm not sure I want to work this hard, so I'm still searching for something easier.
Kendall
What does Gorgias emphasize? Why is this significant to both classical rhetoric and contemporary teaching? And finally, what are you thinking about for your 20-page paper/project thus far?
Gorgias emphasizes two sides to every issue. And truth isn't knowable and speakable, but that we can get together and decide on "truth." For Gorgias speech, and he does mean oratory, is extremely powerful. It can control people like witchcraft or a trance. And speech doesn't need to be grounded in "truth" to have this kind of control on people. Interestingly he's more than willing to admit that rhetors can use their abilities for bad ends, as he speculates Paris has done; if rhetors do so, they are morally at fault, not the people entranced by their speech who actually perform the bad acts. In the Encomium of Helen, he claims that if Paris used speech to convince Helen to elope, Paris is at fault, not Helen. Obviously this two side to every issue idea not only puts the dialectic in the middle of classical rhetoric, but Gorgias did so while insisting that we can't define truth with speech. So he's married the dialectic and rhetoric not put them in opposition to one another. Of course, later Plato will subjugate rhetoric to the dialectic in his search for truth. I'm starting to think that Plato was just a poor student. I think it's pretty clear that Gorgias believed in a finite truth, but unlike Plato, he didn't see any point in pursuing it. Rather he believed in creating truth through the dialectic and not worrying if it matched the "real" truth. We've sort of abandoned truth today, but Gorgias ideas about creating knowledge are nicely in line with what most applied rhetoricians, i.e. communicators, believe today.
In contemporary thought, we assume there's always several sides to a story. And we frequently use a dialectic format to arrive at some kind of truth that we agree upon. Law courts are an example of this. Most importantly, I think the idea that what I'm going to call the functional truth--the truth we all operate under--is determined and not discovered is huge! When we think of truth in this manner, rhetoricians, i.e. writers, create the truth in the act of writing.
As for my project in this class, I think comparing and contrasting the sophist ideas of knowledge making as represented in texts like the Dissoi Logio and even the Econmium of Helen with Foucault's ideas in the Archaeology of Knowledge would be a great paper. However, it would require that I read the Archaeology of Knowledge again, and it certainly wasn't a cake walk when I read it 20 years ago, and even then such a paper would require some major mental work on my part, and it's the summer and all. I'm not sure I want to work this hard, so I'm still searching for something easier.
Kendall
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Sophists Rule!
Sophists Rule!
Stasis theory does provide a nice way to analyze arguments to see where the conflict begins. And it's obvious that for arguments that seem unresolvable like the death penalty and abortion, the two sides are really talking about completely different things. Understanding the underlying theory in an argument allows one to understand the argument better and either create an appropriate dialectic. Until one understands the underlying theory of an argument or the true point of disagreement, it's difficult to create a meaningful discussion. That's clearly what's going on with many "discussions" today.
I find it a little funny that 2500 years ago Gorgias was defending Helen and her love life and by extension women's lot in life. Now, Crowley and Hawhee point out how women aren't that successful at defending themselves and their right to a love life, because they've made the underlying value that they base their discussion on that people should have the right to privacy as opposed to women should have equality with men. When the discussion is that women should have equality with men, contraception including its least popular incarnation, abortion, become about giving women equality with men, or more specifically an equal right to a love life. If it's about about privacy, that implies that the state doesn't have any say over medical procedures etc. when clearly it does. Why do we have licensing boards etc.? 2500 years and rhetoric is still trying to bail women out.
I also find it more than a little ironic that pro-life groups don't appear to understand this dynamic either. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to ban all kinds of contraception. When the issue becomes should any form of contraception be legal (and huge sections of the pro-life lobby think it shouldn't) then it becomes obvious that it's not a question of murder, but rather of subjugating women. If women have significantly less control over when they become pregnant, then it becomes significantly more difficult for them to compete in the workplace than their peers who have more control over their reproductive capacity. Women have less opportunity and less equality.
Kendall
Stasis theory does provide a nice way to analyze arguments to see where the conflict begins. And it's obvious that for arguments that seem unresolvable like the death penalty and abortion, the two sides are really talking about completely different things. Understanding the underlying theory in an argument allows one to understand the argument better and either create an appropriate dialectic. Until one understands the underlying theory of an argument or the true point of disagreement, it's difficult to create a meaningful discussion. That's clearly what's going on with many "discussions" today.
I find it a little funny that 2500 years ago Gorgias was defending Helen and her love life and by extension women's lot in life. Now, Crowley and Hawhee point out how women aren't that successful at defending themselves and their right to a love life, because they've made the underlying value that they base their discussion on that people should have the right to privacy as opposed to women should have equality with men. When the discussion is that women should have equality with men, contraception including its least popular incarnation, abortion, become about giving women equality with men, or more specifically an equal right to a love life. If it's about about privacy, that implies that the state doesn't have any say over medical procedures etc. when clearly it does. Why do we have licensing boards etc.? 2500 years and rhetoric is still trying to bail women out.
I also find it more than a little ironic that pro-life groups don't appear to understand this dynamic either. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to ban all kinds of contraception. When the issue becomes should any form of contraception be legal (and huge sections of the pro-life lobby think it shouldn't) then it becomes obvious that it's not a question of murder, but rather of subjugating women. If women have significantly less control over when they become pregnant, then it becomes significantly more difficult for them to compete in the workplace than their peers who have more control over their reproductive capacity. Women have less opportunity and less equality.
Kendall
Monday, June 05, 2006
Contemporary vs. Classic Rhetoric
Per Lennie's request, this is sort of what I got, but now that I'm reading it, it doesn't seem like much help to me much less other people. Here's sort of how I'm understanding it. If St. Augustine replaced Truth with God--God is the thing that gives language meaning and what humans use language to uncover--then Nietzsche was set-up perfectly to disconnect language from the signifier--God in this case. Or rather according to Rich, Nietzsche replaced God with the new religion empirical truth, facts, whatever you want to call them. I'm reserving judgement on buying that but here's the argument. If you think back on the Nietzsche reading in B&H, or those of you who care about this minor point that the course doesn't really cover can read it in B&H, Nietzsche basically separates language from truth or any standard. Language really can't represent anything for Nietzsche. He really sets up Foucault and company. Based on our MOO discussion, this makes sense because God is backing up truth until Nietzsche in the 19th century. In fact, if you think of Bacon and Locke, they still pretty much seem to have this same conception of truth as God unknowable and ineffable but out there. Nietzsche comes along and says that God was just a fiction for an immature culture and we don't need God anymore--God is dead etc. etc. So no truth--knowable or otherwise--just language. So when he kills God, he simultaneously kills our ability to have language have some relationship with truth. God was the language/truth tether. So language is just floating out there--unthinkable. So Nietzsche, according to Rich I think, says that instead of knowing God and truth, we can know facts. Science replaces God and we get contemporary rhetoric. Historically it works really nicely except I sort of understand Nietzsche as throwing out God and replacing him with qualitative judgements, but I can see how those judgements could be facts. I can also see how those judgements could be interpreted as frames. Nietzsche's pretty metaphorical and really just a bridge, so this is a minor point and not worth arguing about.
So essentially, in Aristotelian terms, classical rhetoric relies on artistic truths: ethos, logos, pathos, but contemporary rhetoric relies on science and facts or inartistic proofs--those things that we can know for Artistotle or prove for us--to make its case. The only problem I have with this is that scientists will tell you that they don't rely on facts, but rather theories that work to explain the situation. If a better theory comes along that makes more sense given the situation, they'll adopt that theory. Sure scientists do rely on empirical evidence, but such evidence is meaningless unless they have theories to give them meaning or make them knowledge. And just like 21st century humanists, they understand that knowledge can change as we reframe it. So science as the new religion/pursuit of truth is really a popular conception of science, but rhetoric is really the study of persuading the general audience, so also I can see how that works too. I've got to say though, when I think of rhetoric in current practice in places like political speeches, I'm hearing mostly classical rhetoric. And definitely if you think of Foucault as a contemporary rhetorician as B&H does, he's not buying truth, God, or science. For Foucault it's language and culture and the interplay between the two. The only thing that gives language meaning is the frame we build around it. Perhaps Rich will weigh in on this post and clarify where I've undoubtedly misrepresented him and and/or this historical perspective on rhetoric.
Finally, I guess a little bit of the problem I'm having with replacing Truth with facts is that we haven't really moved forward, if such is the case. We aren't changing the nature of our understanding of language, we're only changing the basis. In other words, if it's just facts instead of Truth, we're just playing with aluminum bats, but we're still playing baseball. We aren't really moving forward. However, if there's just language and how we frame it, we've moved entirely off the diamond; the people who use language make the rules, the rules change all the time, and it's a much more empowering view of language or chaotic for some, but I think it works better until something else comes along. And perhaps I'm confusing rhetoric with communication theory in an unproductive way.
Kendall
So essentially, in Aristotelian terms, classical rhetoric relies on artistic truths: ethos, logos, pathos, but contemporary rhetoric relies on science and facts or inartistic proofs--those things that we can know for Artistotle or prove for us--to make its case. The only problem I have with this is that scientists will tell you that they don't rely on facts, but rather theories that work to explain the situation. If a better theory comes along that makes more sense given the situation, they'll adopt that theory. Sure scientists do rely on empirical evidence, but such evidence is meaningless unless they have theories to give them meaning or make them knowledge. And just like 21st century humanists, they understand that knowledge can change as we reframe it. So science as the new religion/pursuit of truth is really a popular conception of science, but rhetoric is really the study of persuading the general audience, so also I can see how that works too. I've got to say though, when I think of rhetoric in current practice in places like political speeches, I'm hearing mostly classical rhetoric. And definitely if you think of Foucault as a contemporary rhetorician as B&H does, he's not buying truth, God, or science. For Foucault it's language and culture and the interplay between the two. The only thing that gives language meaning is the frame we build around it. Perhaps Rich will weigh in on this post and clarify where I've undoubtedly misrepresented him and and/or this historical perspective on rhetoric.
Finally, I guess a little bit of the problem I'm having with replacing Truth with facts is that we haven't really moved forward, if such is the case. We aren't changing the nature of our understanding of language, we're only changing the basis. In other words, if it's just facts instead of Truth, we're just playing with aluminum bats, but we're still playing baseball. We aren't really moving forward. However, if there's just language and how we frame it, we've moved entirely off the diamond; the people who use language make the rules, the rules change all the time, and it's a much more empowering view of language or chaotic for some, but I think it works better until something else comes along. And perhaps I'm confusing rhetoric with communication theory in an unproductive way.
Kendall
Week 1 response to reading
What is the value of classical rhetoric in today's contemporary world? In your profession? And which of the pieces listed during Week-1 have you selected to present over?
Classical rhetoric forms the basis of discourse even today. In places as varied as President Bush's state of the union address to discussion about why you must have a new patio table with your spouse, you'll find the principles of classical rhetoric, because that's how the idea of an argument started. Asking if we should learn about classical rhetoric is a little like asking if we should learn arithmetic because, after all, that was invented in the Middle East 2000 years ago, how could it still be relevant today? Just like we still use Arabic numerals, we still use classical rhetoric.
Technical communication is essentially applied rhetoric. Although some people might like to insist that technical communication isn't persuasive--it's goal is to provide objective information--those people don't understand the goals of technical communication or communciation theory. First, technical communication has a perlocutionary effect, i.e. it tries to get the audience to do something such as follow the directions, use the equipment successfully, take the medication as indicated etc. Although it seems like it would be in the audience's best interest to follow the directions, we know from usability testing, ethnographies, and our own life (when was the last time you followed the directions on your prescription perfectly?) that most audiences don't. Consequently, technical communicators must exploit rhetorical strategies more fully to successfully perform their job. Secondly, the representational theory of communication (clear channel, window-pane theory whatever you call it) doesn't work very well. We know that language isn't representational. (Foucault said it best I think when he said we must end "the tyranny of the signifier.") Communication can't be representational if for no other reason than the sender and receiver have different signifiers in their head. So, representational communication theories only serve to inhibit an understanding of the ways in which audiences construct meaning. The articulated view of communication creates a more useful working-model of communication that allows TCers to serve their audience better. And it also makes TCers symbolic/analytic workers or knowledge workers--a much better place to be in the new economy.
Finally, I'll present on the Encomium of Helen.
Kendall
Classical rhetoric forms the basis of discourse even today. In places as varied as President Bush's state of the union address to discussion about why you must have a new patio table with your spouse, you'll find the principles of classical rhetoric, because that's how the idea of an argument started. Asking if we should learn about classical rhetoric is a little like asking if we should learn arithmetic because, after all, that was invented in the Middle East 2000 years ago, how could it still be relevant today? Just like we still use Arabic numerals, we still use classical rhetoric.
Technical communication is essentially applied rhetoric. Although some people might like to insist that technical communication isn't persuasive--it's goal is to provide objective information--those people don't understand the goals of technical communication or communciation theory. First, technical communication has a perlocutionary effect, i.e. it tries to get the audience to do something such as follow the directions, use the equipment successfully, take the medication as indicated etc. Although it seems like it would be in the audience's best interest to follow the directions, we know from usability testing, ethnographies, and our own life (when was the last time you followed the directions on your prescription perfectly?) that most audiences don't. Consequently, technical communicators must exploit rhetorical strategies more fully to successfully perform their job. Secondly, the representational theory of communication (clear channel, window-pane theory whatever you call it) doesn't work very well. We know that language isn't representational. (Foucault said it best I think when he said we must end "the tyranny of the signifier.") Communication can't be representational if for no other reason than the sender and receiver have different signifiers in their head. So, representational communication theories only serve to inhibit an understanding of the ways in which audiences construct meaning. The articulated view of communication creates a more useful working-model of communication that allows TCers to serve their audience better. And it also makes TCers symbolic/analytic workers or knowledge workers--a much better place to be in the new economy.
Finally, I'll present on the Encomium of Helen.
Kendall
Friday, June 02, 2006
Getting started with blogs and classical rhetoric
Here's my blog on classical rhetoric. I've never actually written a blog before, because despite being ridiculously verbal, I'm not very confessional. I want an audience to bounce off of, so blogs don't really appeal to me personally. However, they aren't really much different than webboard, so I can probably handle it.
I haven't finished the reading yet, so I'll probably put up another post before class but here's what I'm thinking so far. On page 17, Crowley and Hawhee (C&H) claim that, "Modern rhetoricians tend to think that its [language's] role is limited to the communication of facts." Really?!!? Perhaps this statement is true for rhetoricians (I don't think so), but it's completely, 100% incorrect for technical communicators. Carolyn Miller wrote an essay in 1979 explaining how limiting and almost misanthropic such a view was. Creating our reality with language is an essential, human function. In 1996 Slack, Doak, and Miller (different Miller) explained how technical communicators were moving away from the "clear channel" view of communication towards a post-modern, articulated view of communication. This view of communication holds that the framing, selection, and articulation of content not only creates the communication, but informs the reality of its writers and readers. Such a view is extremely powerful for everyone in the information age, but particularly valuable for technical communicators who must adopt it to become credible actors in the new economy.
Which brings me to Plato, or more specifically, the bone I have to pick with him. The Sophists put forth a view of language that rested on the idea that language allowed one to create a reality that worked, that did things. It did things by persuading others, but also by defining reality advantageously for audiences and rhetors alike. However, Plato essentially rejected this view of language in favor of the idea that language should attempt to accurately portray "reality." The problem with this view is that it presupposed a finite, knowable (at least theoretically, no one was wise or good enough to really know it) reality that everyone strived to uncover or define. Like the gold standard for money, it provided a basis for language to both stand on and be measured by. And like the gold standard for money, it has some real drawbacks. The problem is obvious. There isn't a knowable, theoretically or otherwise, reality. Consequently, Western culture wasted a lot of time trying to discover ways to know the truth, when we should have been looking at ways to use language.
When we see language as a tool to manipulate our environment with, we can use it more powerfully to create a "place" to live in. This view doesn't mean that we can say it's hot outside and go swimming when the therometer reads 32 degrees farenheit. (Ok we can say and do that, but it doesn't stop our lips from turning blue.) That's not a language use that works for us. Rather when we understand that describing o-rings as safe when they erode half-way through is just language manipulating our perceptions of o-rings, we can begin to ask questions and use language to work towards goals like launching shuttles that don't blow-up.
Plato's idea of a meaningful reality outside our perception and language side-tracked this more useful view communication. Basically, western culture wandered around in the linguistic desert for 2000 years searching for truth. Now, we're finally getting back to where the Sophists put us even though the ghost of Plato still haunts our cultural memory. Now, maybe, we can get some work done.
Kendall
I haven't finished the reading yet, so I'll probably put up another post before class but here's what I'm thinking so far. On page 17, Crowley and Hawhee (C&H) claim that, "Modern rhetoricians tend to think that its [language's] role is limited to the communication of facts." Really?!!? Perhaps this statement is true for rhetoricians (I don't think so), but it's completely, 100% incorrect for technical communicators. Carolyn Miller wrote an essay in 1979 explaining how limiting and almost misanthropic such a view was. Creating our reality with language is an essential, human function. In 1996 Slack, Doak, and Miller (different Miller) explained how technical communicators were moving away from the "clear channel" view of communication towards a post-modern, articulated view of communication. This view of communication holds that the framing, selection, and articulation of content not only creates the communication, but informs the reality of its writers and readers. Such a view is extremely powerful for everyone in the information age, but particularly valuable for technical communicators who must adopt it to become credible actors in the new economy.
Which brings me to Plato, or more specifically, the bone I have to pick with him. The Sophists put forth a view of language that rested on the idea that language allowed one to create a reality that worked, that did things. It did things by persuading others, but also by defining reality advantageously for audiences and rhetors alike. However, Plato essentially rejected this view of language in favor of the idea that language should attempt to accurately portray "reality." The problem with this view is that it presupposed a finite, knowable (at least theoretically, no one was wise or good enough to really know it) reality that everyone strived to uncover or define. Like the gold standard for money, it provided a basis for language to both stand on and be measured by. And like the gold standard for money, it has some real drawbacks. The problem is obvious. There isn't a knowable, theoretically or otherwise, reality. Consequently, Western culture wasted a lot of time trying to discover ways to know the truth, when we should have been looking at ways to use language.
When we see language as a tool to manipulate our environment with, we can use it more powerfully to create a "place" to live in. This view doesn't mean that we can say it's hot outside and go swimming when the therometer reads 32 degrees farenheit. (Ok we can say and do that, but it doesn't stop our lips from turning blue.) That's not a language use that works for us. Rather when we understand that describing o-rings as safe when they erode half-way through is just language manipulating our perceptions of o-rings, we can begin to ask questions and use language to work towards goals like launching shuttles that don't blow-up.
Plato's idea of a meaningful reality outside our perception and language side-tracked this more useful view communication. Basically, western culture wandered around in the linguistic desert for 2000 years searching for truth. Now, we're finally getting back to where the Sophists put us even though the ghost of Plato still haunts our cultural memory. Now, maybe, we can get some work done.
Kendall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)