After reading Ellen Cushman's article "The Rhetorician as an Anget of Social Change," I began to wonder: should scholars be leaving the universities to be more active within the community? Part of me says that it's a great idea. Who else would be more perfect? Certainly, those who spend their lives at study, especially in the field of rhetoric, have something to contribute to the issues that trouble the communities around the university. This had me fantasizing about a return to the days when orators stood in public squares grandly lecturing over charged issues. I pictured various professors on soap boxes barely viewable over the heads of the mob while eloquently speaking about city zoning laws and other fantastic sights circling a great uprise led by bookish dorks. The nerds now the leaders. Of course, after I snapped out of my hallucination, I had to stare intently into my coffee cup and wonder was in there besides coffee.
Now, I jest by playing around with extreme ideas, but I think that Cushman is not exempt from taking similar approach when she compares scholars isolation from the community with "Un-seeing Indians." I believe that the reason for the lack of activism with the communities by scholars from the university is not attributed to study-induced, or even purposeful, isolationism. It could be that university scholars fear reprisal from government bodies. Now I'm sure this isn't the only reason, nor am I suggesting that it is the main reason, but it is a reason, nonetheless. Those employed by the universities, for the most part, are employed by the state, and those seeking tenure track positions are at greater risk in drawing a lot of heat for the sake of activism. Of course, this does not stop opinions from being created, nor does it stop opinions from being expounded in the offices as well as the classroom. But to take these opinions public puts those who seek a career in academia in a difficult position should they create a lot of attention for their cause. Certainly, we don't believe it to be beyond government officials to put pressure on those state employees that rally enough attention contrary to their politics. So what would stop these officials from bringing the hammer down on a lowly bookworm with a cause? It's just something to think about.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Is Emotion Suitable for Politics?
Here is a link to a video on youtube that I found to be emotionally charging.
Mr. Dean
The question of whether emotion is suitable for politics has been, once again, revisited since Howard Dean went into a tirade during his attempt to seek the Democratic nomination for president in the last election. So, can Americans tolerate an emotional candidate for president? Can we get behind a man or woman that is passionate about the duties of the office? I think so; however, that candidate must be positively charged (to steal a phrase from my days as a commercial electrician). George Campbell, in The Philosophy of Rhetoric, notes that there are some passions that "elevate the soul, and stimulate to action" (904). I would suggest that Dean could have been successful in rallying more votes if not for that one "wahoo" at the end of his tirade. Campbell writes, "Some (pathos) are naturally inert and torpid; they deject the mind, and indispose it for enterprise. Of this kind are sorrow, fear, shame, humility" (904). Dean's "wahoo" incited fear into the hearts of his audience and probably a little shame for supporting such a rampant wahooer. As we can see, not all emotional appeals are suitable for the political arena, especially the "wahoo." So, politicians beware of moving your crowds with such rhetorical devices.
*I'm adding this after the original post for those who might want to know the "right" way to show emotion during a charged rally (wink, wink):
The way Dean should have done it.
Mr. Dean
The question of whether emotion is suitable for politics has been, once again, revisited since Howard Dean went into a tirade during his attempt to seek the Democratic nomination for president in the last election. So, can Americans tolerate an emotional candidate for president? Can we get behind a man or woman that is passionate about the duties of the office? I think so; however, that candidate must be positively charged (to steal a phrase from my days as a commercial electrician). George Campbell, in The Philosophy of Rhetoric, notes that there are some passions that "elevate the soul, and stimulate to action" (904). I would suggest that Dean could have been successful in rallying more votes if not for that one "wahoo" at the end of his tirade. Campbell writes, "Some (pathos) are naturally inert and torpid; they deject the mind, and indispose it for enterprise. Of this kind are sorrow, fear, shame, humility" (904). Dean's "wahoo" incited fear into the hearts of his audience and probably a little shame for supporting such a rampant wahooer. As we can see, not all emotional appeals are suitable for the political arena, especially the "wahoo." So, politicians beware of moving your crowds with such rhetorical devices.
*I'm adding this after the original post for those who might want to know the "right" way to show emotion during a charged rally (wink, wink):
The way Dean should have done it.
Christine de Pizan
Pizan writes about charity being more than giving the money from one's pocket book, that it can be given by the offering up of "help and comfort by your speech and advice" (546). I believe she is suggesting that the power of rhetoric moves beyond persuasion for personal benefit or for the discovery of truth but to advance humanity and kindness. As part of the in-class work, we were supposed to pass along the passage that we wanted to explore to one of our classmates. After I passed this along to Amy, she offered me a few questions in return:
"So is this a feminine thing? Women are stereotypically more compassionate. So is Pizan offering a woman's touch to rhetoric? How is charity tying to rhetoric here? Speech is as valid a form of charity as traditional alms-giving."
These are good questions that I hope to be able to adequately answer.
I think that Pizan is expressing a rhetoric of compassion that enable acts of charity not associated with money. I also think that the stereotype during her time was that women are inherently more compassionate than men. In keeping with her time, this would be considered "offering a woman's touch to rhetoric," as Amy put it, but I don't think that is fair. Now I don't suggest the Amy's question meant to diminish value of feminine rhetoric but more of a prompt to get me thinking about the nature what would be considered feminist rhetoric in Pizan's terms. I think the question that should be asked is: Can Pizan's ideas be considered feminist rhetoric is she still operates within the constraints placed upon women during her era?
Early in her book, The Treasure of the City of Ladies, Pizan writes about the proper method by which a princess must speak on behalf of her people when attempting to "make peace" between her husband, the prince, and them. The lady is seen as "an advocate and mediator" (546), but one who must address her husband in the presence of a gentleman escort. While the lady is given to power to speak for her subjects, she is still kept within the constraints of the patriarchal system. I don't believe that this is a full-fledged offering of feminist rhetoric, but I think it's a start. The lady may not be allowed to fully express herself without being subjugated by the patriarchy, but it is significant that she is put in a position that holds some sway over the fate of many lives. If she can speak eloquently enough to elicit compassion from her husband, why are we denying her the right to speak out on all accounts? I think Pizan's work is one step closer to the latter.
"So is this a feminine thing? Women are stereotypically more compassionate. So is Pizan offering a woman's touch to rhetoric? How is charity tying to rhetoric here? Speech is as valid a form of charity as traditional alms-giving."
These are good questions that I hope to be able to adequately answer.
I think that Pizan is expressing a rhetoric of compassion that enable acts of charity not associated with money. I also think that the stereotype during her time was that women are inherently more compassionate than men. In keeping with her time, this would be considered "offering a woman's touch to rhetoric," as Amy put it, but I don't think that is fair. Now I don't suggest the Amy's question meant to diminish value of feminine rhetoric but more of a prompt to get me thinking about the nature what would be considered feminist rhetoric in Pizan's terms. I think the question that should be asked is: Can Pizan's ideas be considered feminist rhetoric is she still operates within the constraints placed upon women during her era?
Early in her book, The Treasure of the City of Ladies, Pizan writes about the proper method by which a princess must speak on behalf of her people when attempting to "make peace" between her husband, the prince, and them. The lady is seen as "an advocate and mediator" (546), but one who must address her husband in the presence of a gentleman escort. While the lady is given to power to speak for her subjects, she is still kept within the constraints of the patriarchal system. I don't believe that this is a full-fledged offering of feminist rhetoric, but I think it's a start. The lady may not be allowed to fully express herself without being subjugated by the patriarchy, but it is significant that she is put in a position that holds some sway over the fate of many lives. If she can speak eloquently enough to elicit compassion from her husband, why are we denying her the right to speak out on all accounts? I think Pizan's work is one step closer to the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
