As I consider topics for my blog here, I find myself thinking back on a journal entry I wrote in my first rhetoric class, back in 1990. In this entry, I mentioned that I didn't think there was really all that much to say about rhetoric. Rhetoric, as I saw it, was the art of persuasion. Persuasion involved getting people to believe things. And as my Speech 101 professor told his class, "The bottom line is that people believe things because you give them reasons to believe." People get dissertations out of this?
Okay, so maybe there's a bit more to it than that. But Aristotle seemed to have most of the details worked out a couple of thousand years ago. Was all of the rhetoric scholarship since then really just a commentary on him?
Fifteen years later, I still think Aristotle made some good points. But even having read his Art of Rhetoric several times, there are still a lot of things I don't know about rhetoric. The more I learn, the more I know I don't know. These are just a few of the tiny pieces of ignorance I've discovered in myself about rhetoric:
- I don't understand the rhetoric of history. Abraham Lincoln is widely viewed as the greatest president we've had. A few dissenters (not all of them from the South) nevertheless see him as the greatest mass murderer America has ever seen, directly responsible for 650,000 needless deaths. They have access to the same historical facts that everyone else does, but they present these facts differently. It's all very well to say that the winners get to write the history books, but I think the rhetorical choices made here are more complex than that.
- I don't understand the rhetoric of science. Antoine Lavoisier, in the prologue to his Elements of Chemistry, argues that scientific facts, ideas, and words should all correspond precisely. The words chosen for a scientific report, ideally, should be a perfect match for the natural world. Current research, influenced by Thomas Kuhn, Stephen Toulmin, Alan Gross, Herbert Simons, and others, suggests that scientific writing does not, in fact, objectively reflect "the world out there." It's easy to look back on Lavoisier (and Pasteur and other scientists who made similar remarks) and say that they were simply naive about their understanding of the philosophy and rhetoric of science. But these guys weren't stupid, and I'm not convinced that our current ideas are any closer to the truth than theirs were, whatever the "truth" is.
- I don't understand the rhetoric of medicine. I spent more than five years working in the medical software industry, and it's not at all clear to me how certain medical decisions are made. Rhetoric obviously plays a huge part--but whose rhetoric? Gorgias claimed, "On several occasions I have been with my brother Herodicus or some other physician to see one of his patients, who would not allow the physician to give him medicine, or apply a knife or hot iron to him; and I have persuaded him to do for me what he would not do for the physician just by the use of rhetoric." Today's physicians have better-honed rhetorical techniques, I think, and they use these techniques to persuade patients to accept the use of knives or drugs or other treatments, even when the patients would rather not accept these treatments. Is this a good thing or a bad? I don't know, and that brings me to the ethics of rhetoric, another thing I don't understand.
- Finally, I don't understand the rhetoric of technology. When I was working on computer-based training programs for hospital staff, my team was supposed to train people only in software use, not in patient care. But our company as a whole was supposed to be integrating software use with the patient care process. As a practical matter, we couldn't fulfill both mandates at once. As we developed training scenarios, we worked with subject-matter experts who recommended certain courses of treatment for hypothetical patients. How much did these recommendations influence actual patient care? I don't know. But I do think this kind of thing provides fertile ground for important research.
This is just a start. I'll be working with these issues, and many others, as I move forward with this blog. Feel free to offer any input you like.
Paraphrasing Whitehead on Plato
Well, when I read your first two questions, I was tempted to simply type </troll>. After all, you've essentially paraphrased Alfred North Whitehead's quip about philosophy and footnotes to Plato -- which itself, of course, conveniently ignored Bergson, Locke, Descartes, Kant, Liebniz, Spinoza, Hegel, Hume, Nietzsche, et al. But your questions after the fold make matters a little more clear, and suggest that those initial two questions were a somewhat ironic lead-in to deeper reflection.
Which, of course, might lead to some other questions, as well -- perhaps concerning Swearingen's Rhetoric and Irony, or Bartsch's work with Tacitus and Pliny, or even the work of Leo Strauss.
So, er, what were you asking, again?
--
Mike
http://www.vitia.org/
Irony and naivete
Thanks for your response, Mike. I'm sorry my opening came across as trollish; my intent was merely to emphasize the naivete I once had on the subject. You are exactly correct that these two questions, especially the paraphrase of Whitehead, were an ironic lead-in to deeper reflection.
This deeper reflection is still going on. My goal, at the moment, is to formulate questions for later reflection. What I'm asking, then, is something like, "What questions should I reflect upon as I move forward with my blog on here?" I'm asking it mostly of myself, but anyone else is welcome to contribute--as you have done most helpfully. My answers to this question are no longer as broad as my initial post might suggest. They focus primarily on technology, although the other issues I've mentioned may be tied in from time to time. We'll see how it goes.
Tom
rhetorics of technology
Interesting, especially with your questions re patient care and technology. They seem connected, to me, to one widely prevalent rhetoric of technology; namely, that knowing the technology itself will suffice to answer the questions connected with it. Its apparent corollary is that such knowledge, and being technologically up-to-date, places one at the leading edge of one's field: in other words, if you're good with the tech, you're miles ahead in every other area, as well.
Me, I'm not so sure, and it seems like your perspective on patient care might point in a different direction, as well.
--
Mike
http://www.vitia.org/
A vast field of research awaits you
Mr. Tom Wright,
It is very good to see a young man grapple with the complexities of rhetoric. And what a wonderful way to begin your research plan: admit that things need to be clarified. I study rhetoric every day and I'm still confused about many things. What I am not confused about is the absolute importance of this question: How important is rhetoric? Indeed, I hold it to be of the highest importance. What you probably learned in Composition or Speech class is what is called 'mere rhetoric.' If you stop with the fairly simple-minded notion that rhetoric means persuasion, then you really would not have whole lot to do and, perhaps, you might switch to social psychology since that seems to be a field where we discover why people believe what they believe and how we might be able to change their minds. But then you'd be operating with the premisses of social science, which rhetoric does not do.
To say something like, "Aristotle made some good points" is clear evidence that you haven't grappled with the difficult process of assimilating his _Rhetoric_. Indeed, he made 'some points' but he did much, much more than that: he offers us the very idea of what a rhetorical culture might look like, something that no other resource in Western history is capable of doing, including the Bible. For further evidence of my position I would refer you to Thomas Farrell's masterpiece, _Norms of Rhetorical Culture_(1993). In that work you will begin to find out what it means to see a rhetorical approach to affairs/appearances/situations. I am not saying that I have mastered this work, which is indeed very dense, yet I will say that if you have any doubts about the relative value of science, philosophy and rhetoric, that you must read that work.
I am not at all clear what you mean by the 'rhetoric of history.' Do you think people in general have the same opinions or approach to historical events? If not, how are we to resolve those problems? There is no way to resolve those problems 'scientifically' and there is no way to do so 'philosophically'. You can, however, begin to think the issue in terms of rhetoric: What does it mean to see Lincoln in one light or the other: to see him as savior of the nation or destroyer of the nation?
As for science, you need to read Alan Gross's book _The Rhetoric of Science_(1996). There you will be treated to the position of social constructionism. I think the classical authors you quote may be viewed as somewhat naive. The very position that word, idea, and object have some determinate relationship is naive. Your claim: "These guys weren't stupid" is beside the point.
I like the way you question the use of rhetoric in medicine because I think Aristotle would have a big smile on his face: yes, each individual must makes choices only they can make and with limited insight and no guarantee--that's precisely what rhetoric provides for, situations of uncertainty.
Your rhetoric of technology can best be addressed by your reading of Martin Heidegger's work on technology. After you look at that position, then we'll be able to begin a serious discussion. I will also recommend a book entitled _Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics, Art_(1990) by Michael Zimmerman and the work of the great Canadian philosopher George Grant. See especially these three works: _Technology and Justice_(1986), _English Speaking Justice_(1985), and _Technology and Empire_(1969). Each of these works deals with the problems of computers and rhetorical judgment.
MGGreer
Wow?
Can I just ethusiastically chip in here that I'm really getting a charge out of lurking in this conversation? This is great stuff.
Thanks, Kairosnews posters! This conversation is exactly why I like to tune in -- folks grappling with the same issues that fascinate me, as well as sharing their knowledge. This board grows more valuable each day as more and more folks "speak" on it.
(I know this post isn't contributing any content to your discussion, but every once in a while the groundlings like to speak up.)
Thanks for the input!
Mike, I agree strongly that one widely prevalent rhetoric of technology is that knowing the technology itself will suffice to answer the questions connected with it. As Mike Hübler points out, "So much attention is focused on the development of means (techniques/technologies), that the end is truncated (human purpose for the technology)." I think this problem, although it appears throughout our society, is especially prevalent in our schools. I worked in a college once in which even the instructors weren't told in advance whether a given composition class would be computer-assisted. It wasn't considered relevant, and my dean implied to me that I could use the same lesson plans for traditional and computer-assisted classes. Apparently, the computers were seen as very expensive typewriters. (Fortunately, my current dean is much more understanding about matters like this.)
Mr. Greer, your contention that rhetoric is of the highest importance reminds me of the title of an essay Alan Gross wrote: "Does Rhetoric of Science Matter? The Case of the Floppy‑Eared Rabbits." (It's from College English 53 (1991): 933‑41.) Rhetoric matters. Science matters. The rhetoric of science matters, as well. Speaking of Gross, your book recommendation from him is excellent; I just finished reading it last week. I haven't yet read Farrell's book, nor Zimmerman's, nor Grant's. I'll have to get to those soon. The last three works you mention seem especially interesting, and I appreciate the tip. I'll report back here when I have more on any of them.
Bob, I really appreciate your response. That's especially true because I admit that I may have made my first post here in haste, and I probably should have looked around a bit before writing anything. But if it started a discussion bringing up issues that fascinate you, then I'm glad I wrote it. Stay tuned--I'll be writing more when I get a chance.
Tom