Scholars Leaving the University for Activism

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.

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.

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.

Revisiting Cicero: Atticist vs. Asiatic

According to the Bizzell text, Cicero, in his work, Brutus, claimed that there are two standards of style: "Atticist" and "Asiatic" (284). The Atticist "distrusted the influence on later Greek rhetoric on Roman Culture" --(think of the word "Greeklings"); "[t]hey argued for the purity of diction and simplicity of syntax;" "[t]hey wished to establish a standard 'Latinity' for Roman oratory" and would resolve question of grammar and usage by referring to the earliest Latin authors" (284). This sounds very similar to me to the movement in the U.S. to standardize English and make it the official language of our country. There are some hardcore, self-proclaimed traditionalists out there who hope to establish a one-language country and force out foreign influence, reverting to the old isolationist doctrine once followed before our involvement in World War I. Although there was no push (that I'm aware of) to force everyone to speak English during that time, the idea of resisting foreign influence and creating a strong American identity was very popular. Actually, with the problems we are having in controlling the "immigration" across our southern border, this movement is once again gaining steam. The integration of other languages and styles into English is something that English language Atticists do not want.

To return to the Bizzell text and Cicero, the "Asiatic stylists...sought epigrammatic terseness or florid emotionalism, after the manner of the Greek Sophistic Movement" (284). Although the text claims that "Cicero vehemently denied affiliation with the Asiatics because he saw them as ignorant of philosophy," he did not agree with the Atticists' style because he felt they "limited the rhetorician's resources. Let the usage of contemporary, educated men and women--not ancient models--set the standard, he argued" (285). Considering this, I think it would be interesting to see where Cicero would stand on the language issues that we face today. I believe that we should not limit ourselves in terms of the evolution of our language, whether that be the integration of other languages or the morphing of language to suit region and/or culture in modern America. Some may argue that Cicero's claim that contemporary usage must indeed be an educated usage, but I believe that the current language shifts are informed changes, informed by the powerful influence of cultures, both foreign and domestic. Let today's people set the standard, argued Cicero. So why fight it?

Augustine and Plagiarism

As noted in the Bizzell text, in Book IV of On Christian Doctrine, Augustine encourages those who could not find anything to say to use others' speeches because his logic was that truth belonged to God, not the speaker. Of course this is a deviation from his predecessors, mainly the Sophists. For them, truth was created by words. I can say that I don't necessarily disagree with Augustine, considering his religious principles, but I do not agree with the way some went about conveying the truth. If one should buy into the idea that truth belongs to God and that associating truth with the rhetor could place the emphasis on the rhetor and not God, one could see how Augustine wholeheartedly believed what he believed. However, I do not see the harm in citing the person from which the articulation of the ideas originated as long as the emphasis is on the idea that the message is God's. This way, one can give credit to the rhetor for arranging the argument and to God for divinely inspiring the rhetor to do so. The message would still belong to God. In considering that Jesus was a teacher who employed rhetoric, he is credited today in the things that he taught, but the message is still credited to God. Now, I do understand that using Jesus as an example presents a dash of trickiness when one refers to the Trinity. However, we still credit the writers of the many gospels from the Bible with the explication of the things they taught in spreading the Word of God. The message or the Word is still credited to God, but when refering to the Gospel of Paul, we say: "Paul said..." So, maybe Augustine had the right idea, I just think that he thought things through completely, or maybe he was too weary of the confusion that may be created in attempting to cite authors in the study of religion. Either way, it is possible to cite authorship and still convey the origin of the Truth.

Enthymeme

There's a commercial for Budweiser Select beer running on television right now that advertises the beer having 99 calories and zero grams of trans fat. The statement, "Step Up to the Next Level," appears at the end of the commercial.

claim: Budweiser Select has less calories and trans fat than other beers.
reason: It has 99 calories and zero grams of trans fat.
Unstated premise: Drinking Budweiser Select will help you lose weight as opposed to drinking other beers.

Also:

claim: Budweiser Select is above the premium level of beers.
reason: It has 99 calories and zero grams of trans fat.
Unstated premise: Drinking Budweiser will raise one's status to the "Next Level," thus making one sexier because of loss of weight from consuming less calories and fat and providing one with a better image.

Right Time, Right Place

Considering article we read for class, "Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation," I can see why rhetoricians such as Gorgias made Kairos the primary weapon in their arsenal. When one thinks about it, making an appropriate and effective argument depends greatly on the time and place in which the argument is to be given. It is the first step toward holding sway over an audience. We examined these points in class as we dug into the Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" speech.

King emphasized time and place to his audience while speaking dramatically in front of the Lincoln Memorial. In fact, there could have been not better time nor place for King's cause. If he was to wait until a later date he might not have captured the opportunity to rally his proponents at the height of racial tensions in the U.S. Had headed the rally in D.C. at an earlier date, he would not have been able to take advantage of the controversial events that occurred prior to the rally, using them as way to add to the ethos and pathos he works masterfully into his speech.

Near the beginning of the speech, King repeated the importance of taking action now. This repetition of urgency was designed to do two things: 1. By repeating the word "now," he is encouraging his audience's short-term memory retention, enabling them to enter into the moment so that they understand the importance of the issue being discussed at this point in time; and 2. he is using the time/place of Kairos to drive home the idea that there is not other time but the present to deal with these problems, that "now" means "here and now." At this moment, this place the decision to move forward must be made, not by the immediate audience, but by the audience listening to the speech on the radio and watching it on television. Time and place, because of modern technology, was transcended in a way that the early sophists could not achieve.