Theresa Enos and Shane Borrowman- “Authority and Credibility: Classical Rhetoric, the Internet, and the Teaching of Techno-Ethos”
I have something of an automated routine when it comes to doing my schoolwork, and this week was no exception. First, I went to my computer, logged into the cloud, and began streaming from my library of instrumental music, which includes thousands of songs from hundreds of composers across time. Then, I turned on my iPad, and logged into my school’s online system, where I proceeded to download the required readings for the week, along with a few of the “elective” pieces I had come across on the JP Leonard Library database. After going through the process of downloading the documents, I sorted them into the appropriate folders, so that they would not get mixed up with the hundreds of other academic papers from various classes and journals that I have stored on my iPad. Finally, I chose an appropriate text, curl up somewhere, and begin reading.
For this class this week, I decided to start my reading chronologically and in order. Therefore, one of the very first sentences I came across was the following: “…Cyberspace is far more transitory in nature than is the printed world of the popular press and professional book/article.” This very true proclamation was made by Enos and Borrowman in the 2001 book Alternative Rhetorics: Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition. I was able to figure out the particular book by using Google and textual clues to discern the origin. Interested in finding out more about the book, I went to the website for the San Francisco Public Library, and searched their availability catalog for the book. Unfortunately, they did not have the book. Neither did any of the public libraries of the surrounding cities. Although not available for free, I figured I could perhaps purchase a copy of the book somewhere. So, I searched all the university bookstores in the region for a copy of the book. Not a single one had it in stock. Disappointed yet undaunted, I was forced to turn yet again to the transitory internet, and searched Amazon.com for the text. However, unfortunately, the book appeared to not even make it onto the list of the top ten million best-selling books on Amazon, and therefore was not kept in stock. As a last and desperate resort, I turned to the publishers at SUNY press, to see if I could order a copy directly from them. Through them, I was able to discover that I could actually special order a print copy of the book, for only $65 and $8 shipping costs (with only 5-7 business days to arrive)! However, they then immediately suggested that I could save some money and receive the book immediately by just downloading the digital version they had available on the Google Play store for only $16. I scoffed. If every single electronic device I owned was destroyed at once, and then Google stopped existing simultaneously, and all of the cloud-based backup services I subscribe to suddenly lost all their storage, there would be no way to ever get ahold of my transitory data ever again. The permanence of the physical was far more reliable, as nobody has ever managed to lose or get rid of the only physical copy of a textbook within a 100 mile radius.
Realizing I had managed to get a bit distracted by this search (thankfully, it was all digital- had I tried to engage in this search without the aid of the internet, I would still be scouring the landscape and bookstores in my car), I returned to the text, only to be stunned by even greater brilliance in the same paragraph. “…When students do research that involves books and articles, the rules are understood; if something comes into print from a university press or other respectable publisher, it can be afforded a certain amount of credibility.” When a big-name publishing house like Simon & Schuster, Harpercollins, Random House, or a leading academic journal, is willing to publish something, I know I have to inherently afford the author credibility. Being incredulous and critical of everything that I encounter, and only judging individually on merit of ideas presented, would be just plain dumb.
In fact, there are just so many statements of insightful truthiness that I don’t think I can afford to praise them all in such great detail. Instead, I’ll simply highlight and respond to each one briefly.
“The night before an assignment is due, claims to credibility by on-line writers are likely to go unexamined.” This is important to remember, because rushed students cramming through their work otherwise never cut corners.
On student’s negative reaction to an unpopular and likely incorrect line of thought: “We have found [this] a useful example… [because] they intuitively understand its illegitimacy.” This is an important thing to stress in pedagogy. We never want students to question or rethink their immediate intuitive and visceral reactions, so this style of teaching will certainly have no downsides.
There is too much I would have to quote here, but Enos and Borrowman follow this up with a brief explanation of a distinction between the aforementioned intuitively illegitimate idea- those who argue for a blanket mindset, and those who question details and argue for ambiguity. “For our purposes here, all such groups fall under the [same] umbrella.” This is a healthy mindset to take, because all people with intuitively unappealing ideas never have anything meaningful to add to discussions, regardless of how they try to argue.
When exploring the appeals of these intuitively repulsive people, Enos and Borrowman point out that many of the proponents consider, and label, themselves as “concerned with truth”. This is an important detail to focus on, because of all the groups and individuals out there who try to paint their ideas and causes as the works of liars. People often deliberately discredit themselves by accusing themselves of being worthless charlatans, so this is certainly a very important idea and aspect of ethos to focus on.
——————————
Speaking a little less critically, the article actually does manage to make a small handful of meaningful and salient points regarding the rhetoric of online discourse, and discourse in general. This comes mainly from their discussion of the way that visual style can often outweigh substance in the eyes of viewers. It’s a shame they didn’t bother to explore the concept beyond pointing out that illegitimate arguments can have legitimate-looking fronts.
Brian Jackson and Jon Wallin- “Rediscovering the ‘Back-and-Forthness’ of Rhetoric in the Age of Youtube”
Jackson and Wallin really lucked out on the video they chose for this article- they readily admit in the text that they expected their example to have faded out of the public consciousness, possibly by the time their article was published. However, instead, “Don’t taze me, bro!” has become an enduring catchphrase on the internet. This is perhaps a result of the remarkable levels of police brutality that have continued to plague this nation, but it is still remarkable how memes are almost impossible to predict.
Going beyond that surface observation, I found myself intrigued by the greater discussion of the internet as a dialogic place. I’ve always known that I favor a more “conversational” writing style in general. But, it was only as Jackson and Wallin described the nature of dialogic conversation that I realized how much of my writing is derived from an assumption of a dialogue. In fact, I’d go as far as saying that I have a tendency to distrust any writing style that doesn’t involve the author both responding to something and inviting responses. As the authors described, this distrust is actually fairly reminiscent of Socratic/Platonic ideology. In this way, my attitude has something of a regressive nature, as composition has largely moved past the idea of binary monologic or dialogic writing. I feel this is likely a moment where I will just have to accept my regressive nature- I cannot imagine dedicating a further substantial portion of my life to inert and dead writing styles. I can accept that there is a place for every style of conversation, but that doesn’t mean that every compositionist has to embrace and master every style.
One intriguing/outdated aspect of Jackson and Wallin’s argument is their explanation that Youtube uses anonymity and usernames. There is something of an intuitive assumption that a masking username has an effect on the rhetorical presentation made by people communicating online. However, in 2013, Google decided to merge all of their account services into Google+, meaning that a large number of Youtube comments are now made under people’s real names. It is entirely possible to create a pseudonym for this system, but a large enough number of people don’t bother to. Remarkably, at least to the casual viewer, this seems to have caused absolutely no change in the substance or quality of Youtube comments. I attempted to find the stupidest topic possible, and therefore went with a holocaust denial video and the “Loose Change” video. In both cases, these are topics where the supporters would have a vested interest in maintaining their anonymity, due to the fact that the videos claim to be exposing heavy-handed government conspiracies. In both cases, users commenting with real names was plentiful. I am unsure of the cause behind this phenomenon- are people simply unconcerned with anonymity, or is it that the internet is perceived as inherently anonymous, even when it is not? Regardless, it is a point of rhetorical focus deserving of further exploration.
Bo Wang- “Engaging Nüquanzhuyi: The Making of a Chinese Feminist Rhetoric”
To be completely open and honest- I could probably think of something that I care less about than early 19th century Chinese Feminist literary rhetoric, but it would be an arduous task. With no disrespect to Ms. Wang or the topic, which I am sure is as rich as the text indicates it is, the issues surrounding it simply mean nothing to me. However, the total irrelevancy of the topic opened up my mind to a broader form of rhetorical analysis. Unburdened from actually trying to determine the worth and relevance of the text, I began to dwell on the rhetoric of rhetorical analysis. As I examined the moves that Wang made, I began to realize how politicized and subjective the topic of rhetorical analysis actually is. When completely disconnected from the topic and language, it becomes painfully obvious how reliant even the most objective rhetorical analysis is on subjectivity and personal experience. What one person chooses to label as “objective” suddenly becomes violently subjective in another person’s eyes. I have no real objection to Wang’s assertions regarding the writings of the Chinese authors that she discusses, but her repeated focus on the translation of the texts from Chinese made me aware of the reality that all of our rhetorical work is just that- translational and heavily subjective. To provide an arbitrary example- one could claim that Chinese writing styles are “repetitive”, and intend it as a purely objective analysis of one of the rhetorical moves made by authors. However, another reader could examine that statement from another angle, and find the concept of labeling something “repetitive” to be a subjective and personal statement, one designed to deride the work. Wang is constantly forced to navigate these sort of situations in her presentation of the text, and it really highlights this ambiguity. Yet again, I find myself lost on where this continues, or whether these problems are ever reconcilable. In a way, I suppose these problems have always been there, and we have always touched on them in these blogs and discussions. But, thanks to Wang, these ideas became just a bit clearer in my mind.
Gesa E. Kirsch and Jacqueline J. Royster- “Feminist Rhetorical Practices: In Search of Excellence”
I have always had an objection to the term “feminism”. In clarifying what they mean by their discussion of feminism, Kirsch and Royster explain that “We chose [] to honor the concept of ‘feminism’ as a variously articulated commitment to justice, equality, empowerment and peace…” If this is the case, what, then, is their definition of the term “masculism”? Is it the exact opposite, a variously articulated commitment to corruption, unfairness, denial, and strife? If somebody is to claim that masculism embodies these negative traits, any sane person would find it their moral obligation to reject such sexism as the puerile and offensive nonsense that it is- labeling one gender as inherently more desirable and superior is the peak of gender bigotry. And, yet, without this distinction, what is the purpose of either word? Assuming that Masculism and Feminism both embody justice, equality, empowerment and peace, it seems unnecessary to produce two different terms for a concept that is 100% identical. In which case, it seems we already have a term that represents a commitment to these notions- it’s called “egalitarianism”. In fact, “egalitarianism” is the term used for literally every other form of this discussion. As far as I am aware, nobody would ever dare to label all support of racial equality as “Blackism”. Even the idea of trying to co-opt the notion of equality and trying to paint it as the purview of a single race is immediately seen as the contradictory and absurd concept that it is.
But, here’s where the real fun of rhetorical debates comes in- by preaching a support of equality and tolerance through non-gender preferential language, I have now, and completely against my will, been placed in alignment with the foulest bigots. For those unaware of what I am referring to, I recommend being wary when doing further research online- the bile flung by sexists feigning egalitarianism is horrifying. However, interestingly enough, the sheer bigotry being exuded by those who claim to be proponents of feminism is equally extreme. These feminists are more than happy to lump me in with the bigots, and espousing the views that I have presented here are enough to garner death threats, harassment, and blacklisting. Which is why I deem it essential to reject Kirsh and Royster’s choice to define feminism as justice and equality, or anything close to these things. If it is the case that the supporters of all terms contain folks who represent the foulest humans, it seems that, at best, the terminology is completely arbitrary. At worst, as I believe is the case with the continued usage of the term “feminism”, it can propagate bigotry.
For the sake of engaging with the paper, however, I will accept the definition that Kirsch and Royster present, and assume that feminism is a commitment to justice, equality, empowerment and peace. So, what do the authors have to say on these topics? Well, actually, not much of anything. The paper is entirely focused on two different topics- 1. Female empowerment, and 2. Recommending and emphasizing specific rhetorical and teaching styles that Kirsch and Royster have decided are feminist. Apparently, male-derived rhetoric has never been interested in paying attention to or respecting subjects, collaborating or considered subjects of race. It is impossible to take the article seriously in the context of the definition that the authors provide- it is only by outright rejecting that notion and focusing on feminism as a female-centric, female-focused genre of study that privileges focusing on a single gender that anything of this article makes sense. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that- there are some interesting ideas about female rhetoric that the authors bring up. But, it ends up getting mired in so much gunk through their attempts to define every single concept as a novel feminine invention that I can’t help but laugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment