We now turn to Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary Language Approach by M. Jimmie Killingsworth*.
Prelude/Chapter One: A General Introduction into Rhetorical Appeals
It is interesting that Killingsworth so strongly works to paint this text as an “ordinary language approach”. It is interesting, however, only because of how clearly he fails at this attempt. Although far more relatable than your average academic textbook, the language contained in the book is still fairly beyond what I see your average person interacting with. Thinking back to my undergrad days, I knew very few people who would find this book tolerably simple. Outside of the university system, most people I know would barely be able to read the book. I’ve been accused of being deliberately complicated when writing stuff that is far simpler than what this book manages to achieve. That said, I’m really enjoying what I have read, and appreciate the text for what it is. It absolutely is far more approachable than your standard academic texts, and Killingsworth has succeeded in keeping me engrossed in the topic.
As a quick refresher to those who may have forgotten- this segment of the book functions as an outline of the topics that will come later in the book, and also serves as the skeleton framework onto which these later ideas will be affixed. He centers the whole thing around the notion of “rhetorical appeals”, which, as far as I can tell, is his way of framing the “ensuring cooperation” terminology that seems to be redefined in every text on rhetoric that I’ve read so far**. These appeals are defined by three key factors- the position of the author, the position of the audience, and the values that are being balanced. Fairly standard stuff, but essential to the basics, and does a good job of outlining Killingsworth’s personal style and values.
On a somewhat more personal level, the text had a heavy appeal to me, in that Killingsworth seems to be the same kind of geek/nerd that I am. It was actually difficult for me to remain objective and critical in this write-up- I was already overly excited once I saw that he used Neuromancer as a reference text. Often times, academics claiming to be fans of science-fiction really mean “I saw The Matrix once”. Although only a brief name-drop, including a Gibson reference won me over as a reader.
(If you are just here for the rhetorical analysis, feel free to skip this next segment. It’s relevant, but long and not essential, seeing as it’s mostly about the rhetorical complications present in a movie discussed in the book.)
Of course, that Matrix sentence above was not arbitrary- Killingsworth devotes a few pages to analyzing it as an example of both a rhetorical appeal, and a sort of “meta” rhetorical appeal. It is an acceptable write-up, and I can’t fault him for what he wrote (especially seeing as this is a rhetorical textbook). However, as somebody with an unhealthy obsession with such topics, I feel it can’t hurt to offer some correction/commentaries on the analysis that Killingsworth provides. He describes the Matrix itself as a human battery farm for machines, where our metabolisms are used to produce to energy for the machinery. However, a quick reflection on thermodynamics would demonstrate why this makes no sense. Any system capable of feeding and maintaining human life would require a greater energy expenditure than the human body would be capable of putting out. In addition, even if the machines were somehow utterly incapable of developing solar panels or processes for plant conversions, humans would be the absolute worst creatures to use for bio-batteries. Humans have horrifically poor metabolic conservation abilities, and, as demonstrated in the film, have a tendency to engage in violence and rebellions fairly regularly. Instead, as a perusal of the full canon will reveal, the Matrix exists as a system unto itself. In The Animatrix, it is revealed that humans originally built sentient machines, and then immediately declared war on them in a rash wave of technophobia. Although a mass genocide against the machines almost succeeded, the robots would go on to win the war and gain control over the world’s infrastructure. Left with millions of prisoners-of-war who wanted them destroyed at all costs, the machines were faced with a complex ethical dilemma- recreate the bloody history of their creators, or attempt to find a solution to peacefully deal with such bloodthirsty creatures. They do manage to come up with a peaceful solution to the problem- The Matrix 1.0. Now, to tie this back into the concept of rhetoric, Marix 1.0 was a perfect world without flaws. Lacking a sense of malice, the machines attempted placate the human aggression with a paradise that would eliminate the need for further conflict. The Matrix 1.0 was completely destroyed when humanity roundly rejected the entire notion. The series centers around the choice between accepting lies in exchange for comfort, or accepting the truth at great personal expense. Killingsworth overlooks that Zion is not purely a pleasant place, but also a place tempered by a heft amount of suffering and struggle. As a further thought, I experienced a mild sense of disappointment when I had finished the segment having not found anything on the directors/writers of the Matrix films***.
(Matrix talk ends here.)
Chapter Two: Appeals to Authority and Evidence
This is an interesting chapter, in that Killingsworth first establishes the idea of incontrovertible truth through absolute authority, and then goes on to spend the entire chapter destroying the notion that such a truth could ever be established in the modern rhetorical landscape. No data collection process is comprehensive enough to avoid being countered by another argument****.
Chapter Three: Rhetorical Situations
I appreciate the way that Killingsworth makes it clear that all rhetorical situations necessarily interact with ethos, pathos, and logos simultaneously. Because we went over the topic in class and in Bitzer, I already had a decent understanding of the situation, but there is always a tingle of satisfaction when texts and themes overlap. Although I find myself agreeing with the author (perhaps too much), I could see how Killingsworth’s rhetorical relativism could be a provocative/contentious idea for a lot of people. The one thing that saves this from being an inadvisable tact is the way that he continues to turn the conversation around to the idea that all of these relativistic notions are not a matter of defining reality, but instead a way of engaging in effective rhetorical discourse. I personally find the idea of teaching a course without engaging in these ideas abhorrent, so I appreciate seeing a way to “slide” certain controversial options by through the defense of a “framework” system that everything yields to.
Chapter Four: Appeals to Time
Time is a very simple concept. The past was better/the past was worse. The present is now. The future will be better/the future will be worse. Due to our apparent sequential chrono-specificity, all appeals to time will inevitably fall into one of those categories. And, yep, that’s pretty much what the whole chapter comes down to. He includes a tangential segment about how modern society is concerned with the notion of modernity, but all in all, it’s not a particularly complicated category to cover. There are more than enough examples of temporal appeals included, to the point of feeling perhaps more comprehensive than it needed to be here.
Chapter Five: Appeals to Place
Well, I have to admit that this chapter did not go in the direction that I expected it to. I figured he would go for something simple and obvious, like patriotism and the idea of international conflict. Instead, he went straight into Native American rhetoric on place. I can’t help but feel that he takes things too far here, and loses sight of the audience. I excused his failings at creating an ordinary-language approach to the discussion, because he kept things at least somewhat accessible and approachable to the general population. However, I’m not exactly sure who the target audience for this chapter is supposed to be. It is so much more abstracted and ideologically loaded than the other chapters that it becomes difficult to extricate the explanations from his perceptions and examples.
* The “M.” doesn’t appear to stand for anything.
** Interestingly enough, I found this to be the most frustrating and complicated part of this segment. Killingsworth ties up the explanation in a bizarre nautical metaphor that never quite seems to connect. His real world examples have far more impact and heft than the forced metaphor does.
*** It was only after careful consideration that I realized it would have been chronologically impossible for this topic to come up in the book. Knowledge of these events was only made public in 2008. At the time the films were made, the popular tagline was “a film by the Wachowski Brothers”, seeing as the filmmakers were Larry and Andy Wachowski. However, roughly around the time that the Matrix sequels were being made, “Larry” Wachowski was transitioning into a life as Lana Wachowski. In addition to making Lana (as far as my research could find) the only openly transgender major motion film director, the notion adds a new dimension to the identity and release rhetorics related to the film.
****The solipsists would probably like to have a word with Killingsworth. Provided he’s not just a construct of their minds, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment