Rhetoric

[This post is an aside to another post on composition pedagogy.]

I've been in conversations lately with students of literature who are studying the political impact of the sentimental novel. For some time, I'd listen to them talk about their work, but I was still confused; I still couldn't quite see the connection between the political and the sentimental. I thought about it some more and finally summoned an example from among the literature I've read that cleared it up for me: It's like Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, no doubt a sentimental novel that had a huge political impact on the abolitionist movement, in no small part because the sentimental discourse and affective bonds portrayed in the novel helped readers to identify with Tom. I realized how connected this work on sentimental discourse is with Burke's theory of identification, how identification as Burke theorizes it is the mechanism through which sentimental discourse does its work:

4. IDENTIFICATION: DESCRIBES THE RHETORIC OF MOTIVES



a. As different than persuasion: consubstantiality (compensation for
division; still within the terms of the logology).

b. As a concern which more fully involves non-public modes.

c. A new definition for Rhetoric? The generation and fulfillment of
expectations through the use of symbols (forms)



Rooted in the notion of substances (physical objects, occupations, friends, activities, beliefs, values)

which we share with those with whom we associate. Sharing substances makes us consubstantial with others.

There are various possible substantial connections among and between interactants. Our symbolic ways for

marking consubstantiality are
identifications, upon which rhetorical action is based: "you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk

his language by speech, gesture,
tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, IDENTIFYING your ways with his." Here, identification is a

supplement to persuasion. Burke puts this more strongly--he might say that identification replaces

persuasion.

d. Three ways to use identification

i. as a means to an end

ii. to create antithesis (against some common foe)

iii. unconsciously and/or out of the conscious awareness of sender and/or receiver

I'm impressed. This is something I'd be interested in bringing into my pedagogical practice somehow. Last Spring, I took a modern rhetorical theory seminar with Art Walzer, who one day in class speculated on how different the study of rhetoric would be if identification, not persuasion, were the focus. The idea has stuck with me, and I'd like to see how scholars of sentimental discourse take it up, whether they do so in an explicitly Burkean framework or not.

After the election and the emotionally-charged reactions to it, Michelle and Cindy have started afresh, deleting their old blogs and starting new ones. I don't quite understand the motivations, mostly because they've done it for personal reasons I can't possibly know. While I'm dismayed to lose the old posts, I respect their decision, and they don't owe anyone an explanation. I'm more concerned about the likelihood that some will stop blogging completely, like Rana, who has announced that she's going on hiatus indefinitely, and now Jeanne, who is thinking about taking Body and Soul down.

I know it's awfully melodramatic, but images of self-immolation on a pyre of virtual burning books keep coming to my mind. I might as well say it -- suttee -- because I can't pretend not to notice that these are all bright, eloquent women. It should be obvious that I have nothing but respect for all of the bloggers I've mentioned, I certainly understand the desire to retreat and reflect for a while, and I'll support any decisions they make about their blogs, but it's precisely because I hold them in such high regard that I must object to the decision to stop blogging (in the case of Rana and Jeanne, that is).

NB to Cindy, Michelle, Jeanne, and Rana: Please correct me if I've misrepresented your motivations. People have assigned motives to me before that hadn't even occurred to me, and I don't want to do it to anyone else. I sincerely apologize in advance if I have.

Fairly soon, we're going to be discussing informal fallacies in my first-year composition class. We've touched upon them already, but I want to set aside a day just for talking about them. I'm toying with the idea of adding a list of mostly tacit debate commonplaces to supplement our study of fallacies of ethos, pathos, and logos. Here are the ones I have so far; they have already come up in class obliquely, but it doesn't hurt to spell them out:

1. The first person to get mad loses the debate. (Inspired by one of the Tutor's comments here.)
2. Anecdotes about "my black friends," "my gay friends," etc. don't hold up as evidence to support your points. (Inspired by one of Harrison's comments here in response to this post.)
3. Comparing those who disagree with you to Hitler or the Nazis really hurts your ethos. (Inspired by countless arguments on various message boards.)

Got any to add? Ought I to chuck the idea altogether? I'm not particularly attached to it and am open to suggestions.

NCA is going on right now. Is anyone blogging it?

Lately I've been checking out those Standard Deviants DVDs from the public library, particularly the ones on physics and chemistry. I figured it was time for a review of scientific notation, scalars, vectors, one- and two-dimensional kinematics, Newton's laws of motion, etc. The viewing is motivated by my desire to use metaphorically terms like "covalent bonds" in casual conversation to impress my friends and my paranoid fantasy that one day I just might find myself in an imperiled spacecraft and need to know this stuff. Yeah, you can say it! I'm an "odd bird." I've heard it hundreds of times before.

There aren't many annoying situations that can't be assuaged by listening to music. Yesterday I was standing in a long line at the post office -- which normally causes me to seethe in my cauldron of impatience -- and I had my CD player, headphones, and Emmylou Harris' Anthology playing. I decided right then and there to make it a point to take my CD player, headphones, and several CDs everywhere I go. Today's soundtrack is Pizzicato Five's Happy End of the World, which you should all check out from your libraries immediately.

A news story for which I was interviewed came out today. If you'd like to read it and aren't registered at philly.com, you're welcome to use my login info. Email: abstractgroove at lycos dot com, password: ararat2

I'm only quoted a couple of times, short quotes at that, and a little oversimplified, but it's to be expected. Oh well.

As a lot of you know, after the outcome of Decision 2004, there's been a lot of outrage and subsequent screeds from Democrats and other left-leaners. I've said elsewhere that, while I understand the anger, I don't think it does any good. Today, via Jill's del.icio.us feed, I found a well-written, insightful letter by a Bush voter that everyone ought to read, regardless of political orientation. It's a much-needed lesson in rhetoric:

It's been two days since John Kerry conceded, and all I am seeing, hearing and reading from the Democratic party is that you guys think you lost on "moral values." You seem to think this means nothing more than opposition to gay marriage. You seem to think that Bush voters waited in line for hours to stick it to the queers, to tell those faggots how much we hate them!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many Bush voters, like myself, were not happy to be voting for the President's re-election. Many Bush voters agonized over our decision and cast our vote in fear, trepidation, and trembling. Many of us would have given our left arms for a Democrat we could have supported.
Because I am too young to be as disillusioned as I am, and because I know that one-party rule is not good for my country, and because it is my deepest wish to see the Democratic party change into one I can give my whole-hearted support, I am going to explain why you didn't get my vote, and how you can get it in the future.

Read the whole thing now.

I just got the green light to write two articles for the Gender and Information Technology Encyclopedia, one on Gender Theory and Information Technology and one on Gender and Intellectual Rights Concepts. 8) Should be fun and a good exercise for my dissertation research.

Move along, nothing to see here. These are really just my bookmarks for when I eventually teach a rhetorical theory and methods course that I can design myself and make Wikipedia articles part of the required work: when, not if. 'Cause the students in my first-year composition class would be flabbergasted and would not like it at all if I waltzed in there tomorrow and said, "Hey, you guys, change of plan! Instead of doing the research papers you've been preparing for all semester, we're going to do Wikipedia articles on the following list of topics instead!" Anyway, on to the needed articles:

• Authorship (They've got plenty on IP, but only a stub on authorship.)
• Reflexivity
• Auto-Ethnography
• Rhetorical Criticism
• Visual Rhetoric (I know a few people who could do a mighty fine job with it.)
• Pathos
• Stephen Toulmin
• Donna Haraway

I searched for Toulmin out of curiosity, but I'll bet there are easily a hundred compositionists, rhetoricians, and pedagogical theorists who aren't represented in Wikipedia. Those searches are for another evening, though. By the way, I searched for myself too, but alas, there was nothing. :( :P