To be
honest, this is truly my first in depth analysis of rhetoric. Last semester I
did take Writing Studies, and we touched base on the topic, but that was about
it. Since I have never been in depth about the topic, I just took face value
that most students seemed to agree that the definition of rhetoric is ‘a way to
argue’. After reading the articles, I am finding that even though a lot of
people seem to lump ‘arguing’ and ‘rhetoric’ together, they aren’t the same at
all. I see it as a way to get my ideas out to others, without arguing or
bullying them into believing what I see is the only correct view. I have dealt
with numerous people in my life who did that, I would agree with them just to
have them back off. It got to the point that I didn’t talk to them about
certain subjects, just because I didn’t want to deal with it.
Covino
and Jolliffe had a couple great quotes. Aristotle stated that rhetoric is not
meant to persuade but to see the available means to do so. Kenneth Burke
mentions how if you take numerous voices together and just let them act
together, you can get a truly functional dialect going. Which makes sense to
me, how can you be friends with people if all you do when is argue back and
forth, and there is not one ounce of decent conversation. You might not agree
with everyone, but you can agree to disagree.
I find
it interesting that we as humans seem to have this quality about us that makes
us want to have our point be the correct one. Or as a student, we try so hard
to make our opinion of what we take away from readings and such, be valued
highly by the instructor. We all have valuable ideas and opinions, but it doesn’t
always mean they are right for certain instances. It makes sense that for any
type of rhetoric to take place, the author really needs to know its audience. Authors
need to realize at what level the audience will understand the text, or
discussion, and also understand that any information being given, might be
changed or rewritten depending on if is for immediate or mediated audiences. (Covino and Jolliffe, pgs 12-13)
The
videos were interesting because I have never really thought of YouTube as being
a media that is anything other than just goof-ball videos being posted online. I
have watched a few decent videos on there, that show concern for people, but
again the number is much greater of videos that are more or less pointless (in
my opinion). For a career, I would love to be a grant writer for the tribal
colleges here in Montana, but I haven’t really figured how I would use YouTube
to help. As the class session
progresses, maybe I will get some ideas to hold onto when I am done with
school.
Sorta puts new meaning in the idea of "being mature." It isn't too far from saying, "Dated and waiting for shelf-life to expire." I have an extremist friend and love to debate.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Kevin, YouTube is largely for that. For my job we post videos of skiing, climbing, etc. and the videos that get the most views are the ones where the subject crashes and burns. But there certainly are examples of good uses of the medium. It's funny, I read a comment on TedTalks that went something like this: "I stopped watching porn in favor of TED videos." True? Who knows. But the point is with powerful enough rhetoric you can accomplish your goals. Something I've learned in social media is that every time you turn around a new program is launched, so while these new avenues give you another means of reaching out to people, it also creates more work. One thing that I would say is that there are a lot of people out there who have no idea what a typical day is like for someone of Indian heritage. If you found the right personality and the right story and the right tech person anything is possible.
ReplyDeleteI liked what you said about always wanting to be correct. It's very true. And rhetoric can be used to ill outcomes. I think that's just our ego trying to shape the world around us. Sometimes that's easier than bending to the world's constraints. Accepting the ideas of others isn't always easy.
I think it's an important thing to think about though. If we are so set in our ways, for example, on a political issue, do we exclude ourselves from that community by only talking and never listening? Some people (Rush Limbaugh) have made a killing doing nothing but talking. Of course, I'm sure the guy listens too, but you see my point - his arguments are generally one-sided. Yet he is one of the most influential people in politics.
I talk to "educated" people all the time, and sometimes I just have to shake my head at what they say. Nothing wrong with their tone or beliefs, but I do believe that just because we can be educated doesn't mean we all have common sense.
DeleteI truly agree with you about Rush, the louder you talk, the more people will listen. Over the years I have found that even though people tend to dislike what someone says, they have a hard time turning the radio or television off. We seem to have this weird fascination to watch or listen to those we hate the most.
Quick question on "common sense." Well, okay, *two* quick questions.
ReplyDelete1. If you check my discussion post on rhetoric you see a little discussion near the end on "common ground." I'm wondering about the relationship between *common ground* and *common sense*.
2. Common sense is common ... *to whom*? Is it possible there's more than one "common sense"? If so, what does that bode for common ground?
Maybe I am using common sense to loosely. I agree that we all are different and common sense to one might not be at the same level as another. Small children learn from example and experiences (so do adults), so they are exempt from this analogy.
DeleteI guess what I mean, is regardless of our intellectual level we all seem to have a "DUH?" button. At some time in our lives we all have done something that after the fact, we look back and remark, "What in the world was I thinking?"
As I write this I can't help but imagine a group of people being lectured over and over about not walking up to an electric fence and touching it. They all know that they will get zapped (common ground has been established in the sense they all know the result from touching it), yet from our own personal experiences (either doing it, or reading about it) we know at least 1 person is wanting to walk over to it and touch it. This person knows they will get hurt, yet something inside of them has flipped their "DUH?" button on and they can't understand or fight the urge to go touch it.
Having a momentary lapse, is one thing, but it seems that some people do this type of thing over and over. Maybe its normal to them, or maybe what we are doing is non-normal, who knows?