Lindemann, Bazerman, and Bitzer do not explicitly cover much in the way of similar content. Although all three pieces are on the matter of rhetoric, the central proposed focus of their texts vary enough as to be considered discrete. Interestingly enough, the three pieces loosely cover three different ideological fields regarding the discussion of a topic. Lindemann attempts to represent the “objective” information surrounding rhetoric, presenting an overview of the historical discussion surrounding rhetoric and its practice. Bazerman could be seen as attempting to cover the “practical”, giving the reader a look into the actual concrete rhetorical moves that are used, how to detect them, and what they are used for. Finally, Bitzer presents something a bit more specific, choosing to zero in on the concept of a rhetorical situation, and exploring it thoroughly. Because of these disparate styles/topics, I’ve not made an effort to integrate my assessments/analysis of these pieces, and have instead decided to simply provide sequential brief write-ups of my thoughts on each.
Lindemann’s “What Do Teachers Need to Know about Rhetoric?”-
Lindemann presents five general assumptions regarding the nature of rhetoric. However, these “assumptions” are far from natural concepts derived from any inherent meaning in the topic, but instead demonstrate the author’s own ideological conceits. I would find such behavior logical, if this book and its assumptions were presented as a rhetorical piece. With academic textbooks, an author is instead expected to present situations as objectively and neutrally as is possible. (There are, of course, a number of texts that deliberately subvert this notion, such as the sublime “A People’s History of the United States”. However, these types of works are inevitably marked by their colorful titles and unique executions. In the case of Lindemann’s piece, we are given a dry textbook and no indication that the work is going to be so clearly ideologically loaded.)
"3. When we practice rhetoric, we use language, either spoken or written, to "induce cooperation" in an audience.” (This is one of Lindemann’s key contentions, and appears multiple times throughout, and not just in the five assumption list.)
I find this to be somewhat of a manipulative usage of terminology. “Cooperation” has a fairly positive connotation in general English discourse, so it is clear here that Lindemann is using the term in order to emphasize the positive aspects of rhetorical communication. However, the only way this definition truly works is if “inducing cooperation” is used in the loosest of possible interpretations, relying on a meaning more along the lines of “induce an action”. For example, say I were to use rhetoric in order to cause a fight between two parties, a fight in which I have no vested interest beyond the violence induced. In this situation, the only cooperation being induced is the manipulation of the parties in line with my desire for violence. Although this is technically still a form of cooperating, it feels disingenuous to emphasize such colored terminology when more neutral options exist.
"4. The purpose of rhetoric, inducing cooperation, involves more than mere persuasion, narrowly defined. Discourse that affects an audience, that informs, moves, delights, and teaches, has a rhetorical aim. Not all verbal or written communication aims to create an effect in an audience; the brief exchanges between people engaged in informal conversation usually do not have a rhetorical purpose.”
I’m of the opinion that every discourse and discourse format is a political choice. Although I believe in remaining as neutral as possible in informative texts, it is impossible to actually remain fully neutral. Let us assume a brief exchange between people in an informal conversation. Here is one example:
Person A: Hello. Nice day, isn’t it?
Person B: Go to hell.
Or
Person A: Hello. Nice day, isn’t it?
Person B: Hello. Yes. Have a nice day.
In both cases, despite being short, informal conversations that Lindemann describes as having no rhetorical value, it is obvious that major rhetorical decisions regarding the social contract and interpersonal relationships are being made by both person A and B in both scenarios. This is actually one spot where it’s possible to bring in the other authors- Bitzer’s assessment seems to agree with me here, as when he describes the rhetorical situation of a group of fisherman who avoid using anything but the most primitive and basic language. Communication is rhetorical, because all moments of human interaction invite a rhetorical situation.
“5. …However, the notion of choice carries with it an important ethical responsibility. Our strategies must be reasonable and honest.”
I am utterly baffled by Lindemann’s inclusion of this assumption. It not only fails standards of common sense, it contradicts the text itself. There are examples throughout of times where rhetoric was demonized for its ability to be used towards insincere/unreasonable ends. Rhetoric is purely neutral.
Bazerman’s “Analyzing the Author’s Purpose and Technique”-
As I already mentioned, Bazerman’s piece is a look at the practical tools that go into analyzing rhetoric, attempting to teach the reader how to do so for themselves. To avoid rehashing the lessons contained, I figured it would be more interesting to instead do a bit of rhetorical analysis of Bazerman’s choices of examples, which I found fairly interesting. For, you see, although masquerading as a textual aid, Bazerman’s text is actually nothing more than liberal communist propaganda designed to indoctrinate the youth. He begins by using Senator Joe McCarthy as an example of rhetorical manipulation, and goes on to denigrate the American patriot by painting the Senator’s actions as an example of the dangers of such behavior. This later transitions into a short transcript of the campaign speeches of George Bush, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton. Bazerman plays up Clinton’s rhetorical (and populist) moves as being benign and beneficial, while Bush and Perot are depicted as aggressive and fear-mongering. Oddly enough, this same fear-mongering isn’t called out in last major textual example he provides- an article regarding environmental conservation efforts, written in a government-produced propaganda magazine. This article takes up multiple pages of the Bazerman piece, and is immediately followed by a set of rhetorical analysis that describes the motivations of the piece, while also praising all the good that these actions enable. Despite being completely irrelevant to the ostensible actual topic of the piece, Bazerman can’t help but load the piece with socialist propaganda. Even the final example of a student rhetorical analysis paper is about resisting corporations and leaders, and placing the “power” back in the hands of the people.
Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation”-
I actually had the most difficulty understanding this piece, so I figured I would focus on more a “summary”-style write-up than the other two pieces. From what I understood of the piece, he’s attempting to outline the factors that influence a person’s rhetorical moves. These factors, “the rhetorical situation”, are compromised of exigence, audience, and constraints. Personally, I saw all of these factors as constraints, but Bitzer seemed to consider constraints in a more abstract sense- such as the person’s ideology or background knowledge. Other than simply repeating the rest of the article, it feels difficult to say more.
Final Deep, Thought-Provoking Questions-
- How do you reconcile the desire for objectivity through neutrality with the ubiquity of opportunities for rhetorical movements? Every attempt seems to fall flat, and even Bitzer’s drier piece still contains some questionable terminology and jabs at other cultures.
- Do we even have any obligation towards objectivity or neutrality in our teaching of rhetoric? Is responsibility purely subjective?
No comments:
Post a Comment