Digging Past the Bells & Whistles

As the semester is wrapping up I am immersed in my scholarship, in reflective moments about my courses, and in reflective moments about my teaching. 

For example, in my work for the paper for this class I am seeing how argument in ads is less based on substantive learning about issues (not to dismiss this completely, because there is learning potential) and more about sensationalism and bells and whistles. This quote below highlights this issue more generally.

"When differences of opinion are polarized and sensationalized....the emphasis in argument shifts from the issue to the skills and personalities of the combatants and the formal structures of argumentation" (Lynch, George & Cooper, 1997,p.76).

Some of the seemingly more persuasive ads I am studying, are not persuasive because they are so much critical, rational, or logical- or because they dive deep into issues and contexts- but because they are sensationally layered with multiple texts building upon one another to reinforce key messages. 

Also, the effort into bells and whistles, and sensationalism over the complexity of issues is problematic, not only for the viewer of an ad, but in general. The practices of evading, of covering up, and of reframing through sensationalism poses problems not only for the issues and people at the mercy of these practices, but for our ways of life and understandings of peoples and issues. 

"Focusing on stark controversies at the expense of the complexities of an issue is also a way of evading or covering up the painful and complex problems that face us and that we must  
resolve if we want to have a society that's worth living in" (Lynch, George & Cooper, 1997, p. 76)

Last night President Obama took the birther issue head on by holding a press release and releasing the "long version" of his birth certificate, in an effort to end discussion and attention to the issue, and also in order to redirect discussion and attention to more important issues.

I think that the birther issue is one of those issues that has become sensationalized both in practice and in theory and has been a way to "evade and cover up" complex problems that we are facing today. 

As a general ending note, not only in politics do we see the bells and whistles of sensationalist arguing, but as was noted by Lynch, George, and Cooper (1997) we see this in the classroom all the time. Providing alternative ways to think about arguing, about important issues, is not only important for debate and argument practices, but it is important for us to be critical consumers of information, it is important for our livelihood, and it I think has emancipatory potentials.

Lynch, D. A., George, D., Cooper, M. M. (1997). Moments of argument: Agonistic inquiry and Confrontational Cooperation. College Composition and Communication, 48(1). pp. 61-85.

Synthesizing

Synthesizing 

Well, I have to admit I am not convinced that argument is an umbrella term and that rhetoric falls underneath that; although, I am trying to understand where others are coming from and why they believe so. I guess as of now I just disagree. I am instead convinced that rhetoric is the umbrella term and that argument falls under that, as well as dialectic. 

Rhetoric to me is a speech act, whether performed, in text, or as symbol (or in some other form that I am not thinking of at this moment). It also can be without refutation or response. Rhetoric can be part of linear process of communication or a transactional one, and this is one of the main reasons why it is an umbrella term for me. Argument and dialectic, as I understand them, are transactional processes. They require an exchange of ideas. Rhetoric, even with the audience as part of its components, doesn’t have to have an exchange. It can be in a dominating, disseminating, and linear form. 

As the readings so far suggest, argument is something that has stemmed from “Western” practices. Aristotle and Plato had differing ideas but it seems the more time passes the more scholarship seems to find some common ground between them that can lead to some of the more productive and positive exchanges of ideas that we can call argument. For example, taking components of rhetoric, dialectic, dialogue, and argument as talked about across our readings shapes a communication activity that can be rhetorical, dialogic, dialectic, argumentative, and can have clash, can be mutually inclusive, and can produce fruitful exchanges.

Symbolism- A way to think about arguing differently

In my personal blog this week I talk about symbolism. Crowley said "symbols represent belief, but they also produce it" (65). I am exploring this further to see if this could be a way to think about arguing differently. For example, if we think of symbols, and even bodies as symbols, we can possibly expand how we think about argument and rhetoric. Typically and traditionally rhetoric is though of as the art of persuasion, as the art of public speaking, as an art typically tied to a speech act.

In the communication discipline performance theory suggests that performance is also communication, and arguably can be rhetorical.

With this, I believe we can think of arguing, of rhetoric, of debate- as different.

If we explore symbols, and even bodies as symbolic, we can possibly entertain rhetoric in a different way that has been traditionally taught and thought of.

For example, if we were to think of major topics for debate and argument through traditional rhetorical and argumentation lenses, we could potentially look past symbols, and the symbolic and rhetorical nature of bodies. Thus, I propose as an individual exercise to think about your own topic of exploration in this class, and ask: Would it, could it be thought of differently if you were to focus on symbolism and even bodies? 

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.