This post was put up deliberately late. It’s the best way to guarantee nobody will read it. I mean, if the length didn’t already do that.
James R. Crosswhite- The Rhetoric of Reason, Part One: Philosophy, Rhetoric and Argumentation, Chapter One: The End of Philosophy and the Resurgence of Rhetoric
The more I work on these blogs, the more I realize how much of my blogging in the world of rhetoric focuses on the ideological stances that the authors take. In a way, this is a compliment to the works that are studied. It seems to indicate that, overall, the methodologies and grunt work involved are fundamentally sound. With some authors and works, I find myself (mentally) shouting “No! That is not how data collection works! Your results are entirely meaningless for the conclusions you’re trying to draw. You could have saved everybody so much time by just spouting off your unfounded theories without all the hollow pseudoscience!” The fact that this hasn’t happened this semester is one of the few things keeping me sane.
With that said, I find myself returning to this frame of mind in order to criticize Crosswhite. As I’ve stated/implied at various times, I find no inherent value or meaning in anything. In order to declare that something is imbued with an inherent moral disposition, you have to prove an impossible set of complications, resolving endless questions of the nature of humans and the very universe. And yet, as with other authors, Crosswhite easily dismisses this concern, happily declaring “peace” to be a desirable value and insisting that rhetoric is a peaceful art. Ignoring the questions of desirability of peace, Crosswhite seems to largely gloss over the idea that rhetoric could be used for reasons beyond peaceful agreement. I’m not sure if he’ll ever return to the topic, but I can still envision blood being spilled through argumentation and discussion. On the most blatant level, I see no reason that discussion cannot be motivated by desires that are inwardly beneficial and outwardly destructive. If somebody convinces another that murder will bring about a better world, violence has been perpetrated.
Thoughts on Crosswhite through Facebook-
While reading through Crosswhite’s summaries of the philosophies of Heidegger, Derrida, Nietzsche and other writers, I became somewhat wary of the statements being made. I have not studied any of the authors in question enough to challenge any of Crosswhite’s claims (and I have no real reason to doubt him), but the breadth of his summarization sparked the following thought:
“Summary’ is an inherently insulting or violent action. Whenever anybody attempts to summarize, they are actively rejecting the narrative that the original author has put forth. In any event in which the summarizer does not believe they are misrepresenting the original statement, they are declaring that the original author's work is superfluous.”
I presented this theory to some friends online. Inspired by Gabriela’s stylistically intriguing piece from earlier this month, I decided it might be worthwhile to post the resulting Facebook conversations*.
Lemon’s commentary is interesting in that it mirrors some of the ideas that Crosswhite presents on the language/cultural barrier between English speakers and the Athabaskan people**. In general, the commentary led me to slightly alter my line of thought, and I have developed a slightly revised maxim:
“Summary’ is an inherently insulting or violent action. Whenever anybody attempts to summarize, they are actively rejecting the narrative that the original author has put forth. In any event in which the summarizer does not believe they are misrepresenting the original statement, they are declaring that the original author's work is superfluous to their current needs. Summarization is essential to modern human communicative needs, but this does not negate the violence being perpetrated.”
Thoughts on Crosswhite, Feminism, Values and Institutions-
Crosswhite pretty convincingly argues the idea that human objectivity is an illusion. I have no quarrel with this assertion. Where Crosswhite and I again part ways is in what the resultant course of action should be. He seems to argue that the divide between different cognitive cultures means that the goal of objectivity should be abandoned, due to the way that it serves as a form of subjugation over whatever culture opposes your own vision of “objective” culture. Although seemingly progressive at first, upon deeper reflection I can’t help but see this assertion as an overwhelmingly cynical and hollow goal. If we go along with this mindset, it seems necessary to follow it to its endpoint- nihilism. If you can no longer agree on the goal of an objectively better world, you are embracing the essential entropy that defines our universe. While this is seemingly the only fundamental truth of our universe- everything fades eventually- it leaves no room or purpose for progress. Of course, all of this is an artificial conceit, because Crosswhite’s proposition is an inherently contradictory joke. If we abandon the idea of objective standards and ideals, where exactly are we getting the idea that respecting other cultures and humans matters?
As we’ve established, striving for objectivity has violent consequences. It is taking an extremely narcissistic stance, declaring “I am willing to destroy a person’s identity in the name of trying to define the universe through a process”. I don’t really care. For whatever it is worth, I have decided on my own set of values and my own personal vision for an ideal world, and that vision necessitates stripping the globe of identity. If culturally entrenched systems and institutional language structures give people the meanings that define their lives, perhaps we shouldn’t be celebrating diversity- perhaps everybody just needs to die. Now, before I get arrested or Section 5150’d here, I’m obviously not referring to any physical acts of violence.
Last week, I condemned the word “feminism”, declaring it unnecessary. This is a hefty topic, and I didn’t really get the opportunity to fully explore everything that comes along with it. So, since I’m already calling for genocide, I might as well clarify that this includes the total destruction of feminists and feminism. And Muslims and Islam. And Christians and Christianity. And Americans and the United States of America. And every single other arbitrarily defined system of cultural values that define people’s cultures and identities. These arbitrary systems provide absolutely nothing of value to the things I hold dear- physical peace, knowledge, laziness, and the pursuit of usefully objective knowledge of the world***. In all of the examples that I listed here, I can find something meaningful or valuable embedded in the core of their ideas. However, there are systems that provide these benefits without the costs associated with them. Returning to the term “feminism”, there is nothing wrong with the feminist idea of egalitarianism. What, exactly, does it offer over egalitarianism? Nothing. It is a gendered word, embedded not for value but for institutions. Should egalitarianism be a legitimate goal, then embracing bigotry due to institutional constraints is immensely distasteful.
As with many of these institutions, I actually fairly strongly agree with what might be labeled as the “non-extremists” of feminism. These feminists are, for all intents and purposes, completely identical to my vision of egalitarianists. Many would say it is insane to create so much friction between myself and these individuals over a “meaningless” word. Yet, as has been demonstrated (also by the very resistance to changing it), institutional words are far from meaningless. They are self-propagating, and they are prone to creating discrimination and violence. Because I choose to not use the term “feminist”, those who do so resent me purely for the sake of rejecting their historically-derived terminology, and this problem persists for all of these otherwise rational individuals and their terms. History holds no value for me- dead people aren’t going to care which words we use. Abandon all loaded terms, strive for a language of neutrality. Of course, any attempt at this will create institutions on its own. People will eventually become bigots in the name of egalitarianism. Maybe, if I’m lucky, they’ll even preach it in my name. At which point, I hope they’re (mentally) killed off in the same way that I want the identities that drive these terms to fade away. Permanent revolution for as long as it is necessary. Lexical Trotskyism, if you will. Except, I’m already beginning to loathe that term, and would prefer it not get attached to the idea.
Some More Thoughts Without a Name-
Since I started this blog, I have accumulated a respectable number of comments. I am averaging more than one comment per 150 page views, which, according to some research that I did, is a phenomenal return on investment for any website****. As a way of giving back to my dedicated fan base, I thought I would take some time to address comments and questions in one of my main posts.
After the blog post on Henry Louis Gates and Co, some people had questions about the meaning and intentions of some of my statements. In particular, Nrgblog asks…
“I’m puzzled by your closing narrative. Do you intend it to illustrate a point? If so, what point? Do you intend to be offensive? Do you intend to claim that you can use multiple layers of irony and not be offensive? Remembering that irony depends on the audience accepting the positions you have laid out, for what audience do you intend this?”
That is an excellent series of questions. So much so that I feel the need to answer each question more specifically than trying to lump it all into a big block of text.
“I’m puzzled by your closing narrative. Do you intend it to illustrate a point? If so, what point?”
I did intend to illustrate a point. Many points, even. The puzzling nature of the text was part of a deliberate attempt to avoid being too forthright. Though, perhaps I erred too far towards indirectness. Every artist intends for their work to signify more than they could explain directly (no reason to bother with art otherwise), so I believe both this explanation and the original story have value. For those of you not aware- the events of my story pretty directly parallel an actual event that occurred to Henry Louis gates in 2010. The Monkey represents Gates, the Lion is Obama, and the Boars are the Police. I chose these pairing-ups for the way that the events mirrored a number of aspects of the traditional Signifying Monkey stories. Gates is an intelligent smart-talker on the fringes of society (he was out of town for a month because he was busy filming a documentary in China). Obama is a boastful character who claims to be the supreme leader, while ultimately capitulating to every force that remotely opposes him. “Boars” is perhaps a too kind term for what police officers actually are, but it was an appropriate enough term for strong-arming enforcers who hold little adherence to any laws and even less respect for the worth of others.
As I mentioned in the post, I struggled with my feelings towards Gates going into reading “Signifying Monkey” and writing my blog post. On the one hand, I have an immense respect for Gates and his works. I am well aware that he is a far smarter man than I will ever hope to be. However, I also lost a lot of respect for Gates in the wake of the “Beer Summit”. I view/viewed his willingness to go along with the “summit” as a form of capitulation to the wishes of a United States that is still fundamentally beholden to white supremacy and a love of fascism. I can understand and respect the obvious reasons for going along with the action, as I am sure he was concerned with his advanced age, societal pressures, presidential pressures, job security, and so on and so forth. However, such reasons don’t eliminate the fact that such a choice works to delegitimize him as a figure of racial awareness and ethnic resistance. In that moment, Gates made it clear that he was perfectly content to be nothing more than a detached Ivy League academic, quietly doing his research with no concern for the real-world ramifications of his thoughts and statements. Initially, I found myself simply explaining my frustration with this aspect of Gates. I ended up seeing my own explanation and ideas as too juvenile, lacking a certain nuance and respect for what Gates has actually managed to accomplish. Regardless of his failings in living up to my ideals of what a person should be, there is still a wealth of information to be plumbed from the writings and thoughts he has produced for the world.
As a sign of respect to that work, and the piece that I was responding to in particular, I decided to do my best to engage with everything that was presented. The world of Signifyin(g) that Gates presents ended up being a rather rich and engaging field of rhetorical communication.
“Do you intend to be offensive?”
To a degree, I did intend to be offensive. I believe that being offensive, even in situations where it is being used positively, is an inherent aspect of what Gates identified as Signifyin(g). However, being offensive is not simply a matter of upsetting people- it is an aspect of communication that is still rhetorical, that still hopes to effect change in the audience. This “offense” and desire for change is also tempered by the relative adherence to fact, and the positions of the individuals involved in this signifying presentation. Although I am calling out Gates for his lack of resistance, I am still a small student in the cogs of a bigger system, failing in my own resistances and abilities. At the end of the day, Gates can still call on his list of accomplishments and awards. I have nothing.
“Do you intend to claim that you can use multiple layers of irony and not be offensive?”
I have spent a decent amount of time contemplating this question, and I think I finally found the correct answer: Yes, and no. It is impossible to say something with multiple layers of irony that will avoid offending everybody. Anything of sufficient complexity will inevitably contain content that is offensive to somebody. However, I do believe that it is possible to produce a piece of multilayered irony that is not deliberately or explicitly offensive. Or, perhaps, looking at the question differently, Nrgblog was asking whether I, personally, was capable of such a sophisticated act of composition. In which case, I have to admit that I am probably not skilled enough to pull off such a move. As should be evident from this blog, I am not particularly skilled when it comes to the more commercial and palatable aspects of producing appeals. Despite my best efforts, I am lumbering and crude, stuck in a certain foul baseness that can occasionally be alienating or disruptive. However, ideologically, I feel minimal pull to break away from such a mindset. Presume that one does manage to produce a completely toothless piece of layered irony. What is the purpose? Who benefits from such a piece?
“Remembering that irony depends on the audience accepting the positions you have laid out, for what audience do you intend this?”
In a way, I never intend my blogs to go out to a real audience. I’m arguing with myself, most of the time. It’s part of why I feel so comfortable making definitive statements and occasionally being very wrong. When I write about a person, I like to imagine that there’s a chance they’ll read it personally, even if it’s completely impossible or implausible. Beyond that, I suppose my target audience is informed consumers- an outsider to the class I am continually referring to is going to have a difficult time following along (despite my numerous efforts to make this blog as independent as it is dependent). Any readers who are unfamiliar with the documents or situations that I am referencing is going to have an even tougher time. I always make sure there’s a way to find (what I see as) necessary context for my statements, but I try to avoid making things too easy. Too much summarizing is pretty violent, you know?
Bonus Mini-Topic-
Bonus Blog Statistics-
As of this post, this blog contains nine distinct posts, averaging roughly 1,774 words per post. The shortest post, covering the rhetoric of blogging, weighs in at only 670 words. This post is the longest, being a hefty 3,532 words. Extra-textual links make their first appearance in the second post, and there are over twenty links to other sources and topics scattered throughout these posts. If stitched together (with blog titles discarded), this blog would total at 15,961 words, equaling more than forty pages of printed text. Since the first post of this blog went up, the average American has slept 334 hours. Since the first post of this blog went up, I’ve slept roughly 500 hours. That doesn’t really mean anything. I just sleep a lot, and thought it was moderately interesting.
Corrections-
Last week’s blog contained a fairly large oversight, an oversight that was that was thankfully caught by one astute reader. When searching for a copy of Alternative Rhetorics, I scoured University Bookstores, private booksellers and public libraries. However, it never occurred to me to check university libraries- and SFSU does indeed posses a copy of the book. Our society has devoted a truly astounding amount of infrastructure to the storage and continued presence of printed texts, which is something I find both admirable and utterly insane.
It seems like we’ve used up all of our time slot, and we will have to bypass responding to any further comments. Thank you, and see you all next week.
*Were this still the section on Jackson and Wallin, I would devote more time to assessing the nature of internet comments. My “Friends” list is obviously a more limited audience than a publicly available Youtube video, but I was somewhat surprised by the fact that real discussion was sparked.
**Interestingly enough, my spellcheck keeps flagging “Crosswhite”, while Athabaskan goes through smoothly. This is mostly an excuse to segue into something that I forgot to cover previously- In this blog post by Gabriela, she noted that the Wordrpress spellcheck service refused to acknowledge Puerto Rico as a proper term. She would probably find it interesting to know that it likely wasn’t Wordpress that was disavowing the existence of our little national colony. I experimented with posting the term into Wordpress across various web browsers, and discovered that “Puerto Rico” being marked as spelled incorrectly was actually a result of the particular spellchecker of said browser. I don’t own any Windows products, but the only major browser that marked “Puerto” as incorrect for me was Firefox- Safari, Opera, and Google Chrome all deemed the term acceptable. I can’t guarantee my theory is correct, but based on the evidence I gathered, it appears that Firefox’s behavior is not derived from any hatred on Brendan Eich’s part, but is instead due to licensing restrictions arising from the fact that Firefox is an open-source program, and the dictionaries involved are therefore also open-license.
***Should these ideals ever be exposed as having flaws that are incompatible with scientifically-derived objective evidence, I will readily abandon them. I am aware that these ideals are as inherently arbitrary as any other human values, but as far as I can tell, they result in a lot less pain and death than any currently established system. That’s good enough for me.
****Viewer interactivity on websites is often measured in Comments-Per-Mille, indicating how much participation versus passive viewership is occurring. For example, a typical popular Youtube video might receive 5 million views and 5 thousand comments, giving it a comment per mille of 1. My blog is currently averaging nearly six times that volume, indicating a very involved readership. (There is also a CPM that stands for Clicks-Per-Mille, but that refers to advertisements, and this blog has a commitment to remaining independent.)
No comments:
Post a Comment