Reading Notes #1

Rhetoric has long been a topic of controversy. What exactly does this word mean? As it goes, there are many different answers to this question. In other words, rhetoric has many different reputations, and the word conjures up good as well as bad connotations in many minds. Plato, who was interested in discovering absolute truth, especially disliked the term “rhetoric”. He believed it to be merely the subjective act of persuasion. However, sophists in Athens taught rhetoric so people could communicate effectively. And so the debate goes on. Is rhetoric simply the act of persuasion or could it actually be useful on a scale larger than influencing one’s views?
I am not completely for or against rhetoric, and I don’t think that is the central issue. I believe rhetoric is a necessary component of our society and culture, whether one chooses to believe this or not. I think humans naturally seek to form their own opinions and gravitate towards others who share the same views. Once people have formed views and perspectives, they are likely to attempt to persuade others of these stances. As people find others who share the same views, they begin to feel validated and accepted.
Rhetoric is mostly looked at as a subjective topic partly because persuasion is such a major component. When people attempt to persuade another, they are utilizing their different ways of thinking that vary from person to person. However, there are also somewhat objective views of rhetoric. Some believe that facts are discovered as a result of debates. Whether or not this is what actually happens, rhetoric definitely builds a sense of community by bringing together people with similar ideas.
Scot also introduced a model that was presented at a recent conference about the productivity of rhetoric. It told of rhetoric “seeing (problems, points of view, events, etc.), making (assembling), and doing (motivating others to take action).” In this way, rhetoric is seen as an effective way to communicate. I agree with this idea, and as previously mentioned, believe humans naturally gravitate towards this process.
Like I said earlier as well, I believe rhetoric is a necessary part of society. And in today’s society, technology is a main component. As we all know, today’s society and culture is increasingly fast-paced. In order to keep up with the times, I believe we need to consider technology’s role in rhetoric. I think we need to incorporate a certain amount of “fast rhetoric”, as Faigley calls it, into the way we communicate. This could be as broad as showing a friend a video clip of a political candidate’s speech or being able to make a video in place of a paper in an English class. Faigley is in favor of “slow rhetoric”, or books and other print media because there is less chance of mistakes and confusion. Yancy, on the other hand, suggests reforms of current English curriculums that would include more technology resources. I am therefore more likely to agree with Yancy’s point of view. I feel that people should include technology and “fast media” more in general communication as well as specific areas, such as English courses. However, I believe people should use a certain amount of caution when using these technology mediums. They need to be aware of the validity and truth of the sources. If these steps are taken, everyone will be able to connect through common ground. Our society is ever-changing and we need to be able to adapt.