Oh Aristotle- How I want to support thee

Aristotle is a man who is full of ideas. He seems to believe wholeheartedly in his assertions which are soOooOOo totalizing and positivist that the frameworks he sets up and the rational(s) in which everything is pinned, ultimately leave little room for discussion. Including a conversation about arguing differently.

This is not to say that we can't discuss alternatives and that there isn't room for discussion; what I am positioning is that if I could sit and chat with him (would he even due to my vagina?) about rhetoric and argumentation I would be quite curious for how much he would be willing to flex, how much he would be willing to concede, and whether or not he would acknowledge that there are other ideas out there about happiness, why people do harm to others, that there may be more than two kinds of right and wrong towards others, that unjust actions may be divided into more than "two classes", that maybe everyone doesn't get a sense of pleasure from vengeance, etc. Ultimately, I question: Would he deviate from his passionate assertive Truths? As his work suggests, I am guessing no- even if I used his own framework to negate his affirmations I am guessing it may fall on deaf ears.

This is a point of concern for arguing differently. If this is what the "West" understands, and if this is what is the framework from which many other argumentation and rhetorical theories are based....then... what room is there for other voices? Other interpretations? Other practices?

After reading Aristotle I walk away with a mixed bag of feelings and knowledge(s). As a scholar and as someone that respects passionate convictions I most certainly respect him and his influence on the study of rhetoric. However, as someone who is critical of totalizing and positivistic claims (especially in such areas of research as rhetoric), as well as exclusionary frameworks (for example his role as a White Heteropatriarch which distinctly excludes people based on sex, gender, class, and race), I am very weary of his frameworks and my practical application of Aristotelian rhetorical methods. I, in a way, even feel guilty for having subscribed to his frameworks of rhetoric up until this point. As a communication instructor, for example, I have been regurgitating ethos, pathos, and logos in my instruction for years, and I am beginning to wonder if this is appropriate. Have we been misusing Aristotle? Have we reinvented his work today so that it barely resembles his original intentions? Am I reinstilling violent frameworks for others to follow? Have I caused damage because of this?

I am left with these thoughts, more than a passionate celebration of Aristotelian rhetoric.

Reasoned discourse: Is there still hope for it?

There are several directions I am interested in pursuing in discussing Aristotle, but the one most related to our particular class focus is the way that Aristotle ties persuasion in with demonstration: “Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.” He then discusses the difference between dialectic, which depends on syllogisms, and rhetoric, which makes more extensive use of enthymemes (a syllogism where the audience supplies one step in the logic, perhaps unconsciously). In reading this aspect of Aristotle’s thought, I realized that I have, probably naively, tended to believe/hope that if people can just be made aware of the whole truth about something, they will be persuaded (probably to think like me?!). That is, I think that if something can just be demonstrated clearly, truthfully, and well, the related persuasive point will be more easily made. If only people could read all the facts on global climate change, we would all be willing to make a difference for the environment. If only a clear case could be made for protecting helpless animals, no one would oppose Prop B, etc…

You can call me naïve, and I probably am, but I do think there is something to Aristotle’s connection between logic, demonstration, and persuasion. It is just that in our argument culture, we are so busy watching the agonistic fights that we no longer seem to have time to consider reasoned demonstrations. It is one of the things I like about Obama: his emphasis on intelligent, reasoned discourse. At the same time, we are beings who respond to pathos, as Aristotle also emphasizes, and I realize that people seem to have been more responsive to Obama when they could focus on his elegant rhetoric rather than hear from his wonky side. He has been getting kudos lately for speaking with passion again. Yet I do not want to give up hope that reasoned demonstration can actually make a difference!

Aristotle's Capital t Truth

I think Haley, Nilu, and I see eye to eye on a lot of the issues they brought up with Aristotle (see: post and comments). It's easy to play the doubting game, and as I found out last night, not being able to see any value in something (or better, not being able to see flaws in something else) exemplifies a lack of critical skills that create dangerous paradigms. I'll play the believing game for a moment, before getting to the main thrust of this post.

Aristotle's Rhetoric is good for what it is: one of the first written 'how to' Rhetoric guides. In my mind, I see this less as a treatise we should take completely to heart and more of an example of rhetoric in practice. To persuade effectively you need to know what makes people happy so you can make them happy when you speak. Here are 32 different things that make people happy and examples of each. You need to show your audience that you are a 'good' person so they take what you have to say to heart. Here are 32 different reasons why people are good and these are the ones that are most important. To persuade effectively about politics you need to know about politics. Here are the different kinds of government. And on and on.

However, I find myself really disagreeing with Aristotle when he gets to Ch.1 Bk12. In this section he talks about the reasons men decide to break the law. On lines 6-8 hey says that men will break the law if they "suppose that the thing can be done, and done by the,: either that they can do it without being found out, or if they are found out they can escape being punished, or that if they are punished the disadvantage will be less then the gain for themselves or those they care for." As usual, Aristotle's generalizations are somewhat true, even to a contemporary audience. A person will do something that breaks with the status quo on right and wrong if they can do it without being caught. A person will still steal to feed his starving family. However, the reason I find myself doubting this so much is because I know that Aristotle was writing this (or it was written for Aristotle) in a time that had completely different views on right and wrong, different values of human life, and different categories for these universal capital t Truths. In one sense, Aristotle is making the argument that a man will escape the bonds of slavery if the payoff is greater than the cost. When the cost is one's life, and the payoff is freedom, it seems unlikely that there is going to be a rule set that explains away this one.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what you all think about this 'classic' text in the rhetorical tradition. But for now, I'm going to keep reading Aristotle with the expectation that this is a blueprint, a framework, for sharpening my persuasion skills. Nothing more.

Rhetoric- Mans Art of Persuasion

As I slowly have begun reading Aristotle's rhetoric I can't help but think about Aristotle himself and what he is suggesting. Yes, he is supposed to be "the reference" for rhetoric, but it is hard for me to get past a few things. Before I get on my soap box, I would like to first mention a few constructive things that I am noticing that have inherent value in understanding "the art" of rhetoric.
As Karyal aptly summarized- rhetoric, according to Aristotle and as interpreted by Aristotle, has uses. The most important of these, which I think hints at some of the dialogic qualities admired by Cathy, and myself, is the idea that when we engage the art of persuasion it is important to acknowledge and understand opposing, or in my mind- other sides. Aristotle specifically states that "We must be able to employ persuasion...on opposite sides of a question...in order that we may see clearly what the facts are" (Aristotle, para 7). Now if I understand Aristotle correctly it is important to understand the other side in order to better our advancement of what is good and true, and so that we may be able to call out an adversary that is arguing unfairly or for what is not good or untrue. Although, this has its merits, especially during forensic oratory, I would rather spin this idea by Aristotle into a dialogic use of rhetoric. One that is concerned not just for what is being said in refutation, but also being open to what is said and having respect for the one, or others, that are speaking in refutation. Within the process of understanding the "other side", or in my perspective all the other sides, there is room for one to embrace the principles of dialogue that I cherish, such as: empathy for the other speaker(s), and compassion toward the speakers involved and the subject(s) at hand.

With this said, I am having trouble getting behind his framing of rhetoric (note, I am not that far in the readings) because of its grounding in forensic oratory, his elitist perspective ("there are people whom one cannot instruct" (Aristotle, para 7)), and his positioning and use of MAN. Although there is value in understanding forensic oratory, I don't believe in his rhetorical values of "arriving at truth" and what is just. Truth, with a capital T, is a myth in my humble opinion as well as what is "just". To arrive at what is "just" is inherently grounded in a penal structure with discipline and punishment as tools to check those who are unjust. The flaw here, is that in many instances of justice, and things that are systematically found to be just- I personally have found to be unjust. Thus, to ground rhetoric within the framework of seeking Truth and Justice, or what is Just, is a framework that I am uninterested in, mostly because of its inherently flawed and oppressive natures.

Next, his elitist perspective shows inherent problems with his ideas of rhetoric. Although, this highlights the importance of the audience in rhetoric, I find that to suggest that there are those that are unable to be instructed is problematic. It suggests a privileged position which arguably can inhibit communication, place class value on speech, and can ultimately leave people out of important conversation. In fact, I would like to go so far as to say, that it is such people as he describes as uninstructable, that should be included in conversations and rhetoric (whether political or forensic).

Finally, although his referencing of men as the agents of rhetoric is subject to the times that Aristotle was alive, I still have a hard time excusing it and getting on board. Anytime that people reference people with the terms MAN all I can think of is how historically that term was used to include a very specific group of people (White men with certain class positions- and more recently heterosexual) and exclude most others (Women, persons of color (note: i understand the contentiousness of this term- can you suggest another- it is hard with out limited language), the disabled/handicapped, and many others).

So, as I continue reading Aristotle's rhetoric I will try to put my soap box aside and employ the qualities that I seek in rhetoric, argument, and communication. I will openly try to understand what he is saying, why he is saying it, and respect him as a speaker. I just hope there aren't too many more references of Man- because as someone who isn't his intended audience, as someone who he literally was excluding from the conversation of rhetoric, it kind of hurts since I enjoy rhetoric so much.

Dialogue or Arguing?

Last year in Communication Theory class we read Speaking Into the Air by John Durham Peters, who takes his readers on a sweeping yet in-depth journey through the philosophy of communication. In the opening chapter, he outlines a contrast he will follow throughout the book - a contrast between communication as dissemination and communication as dialogue. For Peter, communication as dialogue is exemplified by Plato's Socrates, who in Phaedrus puts forward a vision of communication that "must be soul-to-soul, among embodied live people, in an intimate interaction that is uniquely fit for each participant" (Peters, p. 47). It was interesting to come to Aristotle's Rhetoric with echoes of JDP and Plato still in my head, and to see his more practical consideration of the "available means of persuasion." Why do we teach Aristotle and Cicero in Introduction to Public Speaking, and not Plato? Why has the Western tradition rewarded those who can persuade and win arguments rather than those who develop skills in the area of intimate, dialogic, soul-to-soul communication?

I am still hesitating to begin my bibliographic network, because I realize I have NO grounding, no background, no training in argumentation. What I have learned of ethos, logos, and pathos, I have learned since starting to teach at MU. What I know about forensics I have learned at the feet of fellow graduate students (thank you Hayley!). I realize that, instead, my training has been in dialogue, in listening, in speaking the truth in love, in speaking truth to power (but realizing that often means "losing" in the world's eyes), in searching for that which can most powerfully convey truth that is forged in community, and which honors the multiple voices that contribute to the process. Even though I am intensely interested in political communication, and worked on my first campaign at the age of seven, I do not think I could hold my own in a political debate! So it is with real curiosity and more than a little hunger that I come to Aristotle. As I am beginning this reading, I see the familiar outlines of what we teach in Comm 1200, but I am looking forward to going deeper. More in another blog post once I get to that depth...