The rhetorical
situation exists in everything. Or does it? Fish speaks in "Rhetoric" of the foundationalist
who believed that rhetoric’s were the devil; in that, to approach anything with
a skewed and molded sense of it was an act of deception and power mongering.
Fish, of course, assumes the very essence of Beelzebub by writing on the issue
as a rhetorician. He establishes his position by slyly showing the holes in the
opposition’s viewpoints through rhetoric. To say the least: Fish is an asshole.
However, he does establish a good point: it is the rhetor who has the power.
Indeed,
it is the rhetorician who can persuade people to what the “truth” is. It is,
however, not without great effort. Grant-Davie’s “Rhetorical Situations and
Their Constituents” discuss in detail how the “rhetorical situation” occurs;
how the rhetors and the audience interact; how it is restricted (or expounded)
by constraints; and how to identify and use the exigency, as well as everything
else, to our advantage. They go on to say, “[R]hetors who can define the
fundamental issues represented by a superficial subject matter—and persuade
audiences to engage those issues—is in a position to maintain decisive control
over the field of debate” (Grant-Davie 267). Thanks! World domination will be
so much easier now.
The
wrench in the gears develops when observing a rhetorical situation as a
rhetorician. Grant-Davie only slightly touch on this subject, using the
metaphor of reading a charity pamphlet asking for donations as a rhetorician. I
see this as the ultimate obstacle for any rhetor. How do you persuade a fellow
rhetor into thinking he is not being persuaded but in fact do just that? We can
notice this in Fish as he considers the serious man’s (foundationalist) side of
the argument only to absolute decimate it. He does this by making a serious man
inadvertently discover that he is in fact a rhetorician (just a shitty one) and
converts him to the dark side. Fish would have made a much better Darth Vader.
It
is, however, very important to realize the sequence upon which rhetoricians attempts
to persuade his or her audience. For example, I first read Fish’s view on the
rhetorical man versus the serious man and was lead to the conclusion (by Fish)
that the rhetors hold the power. With this new found knowledge, I read
Grant-Davie’s piece and discovered that I too can harness this power and even
read as a rhetorician! This ultimately brought me to the longest read: Giesler’s
“IText.” It was to my utter joy that I discovered
in only the second paragraph this sentence: “This
article is a call to those who share our sense of urgency and opportunity”
(Geisler 3). Excellent! I have identified, as a rhetorician, Geisler’s audience
and am not one of her constituents. So I stopped reading.
In conclusion, thank you
Grant-Davie. Fish: you’re still an asshole.
I can go along with the idea that the seeming disparity between rhetorical and serious man is an illusion, that the role of serious man is that of a veiled rhetorician, that the constative is just another branch of the performative, that the truth as perceived through the human faculty is not static but one that is perpetually re-interpreted, but despite these premises, I still do not deny the existence of an essential reality independent of humans. I think the rhetorical nature of world as mediated through the human is a symptom of humanity, and does not reflect the world as it is. According to basically all belief systems, whether scientifically-based or spiritually-based, we are not the vanguards of existence; the world is perfectly capable of existing outside of us.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the reality we perceive is limited to our mental faculty. If rhetoric is in our nature, then we better get used to it. That is the only reality we can operate within unless something is fundamentally changed in how we perceive the world and interpret information. To us rhetoric is a fundamental truth, the essentialism underlying operation, but the real truth, the truth serious man so longs to grasp, that truth will remain undiscovered.
I also have the tendency to believe in an essential reality outside of humans. I like to view rhetoric as a lens through which human experiences of the world are shaped. We are not separable from this lens, and the world perceived by each of us is in essence rhetorical. Therefore, the power of rhetoric is foundational to human existence.
DeleteHowever, I am not the only one with a valid opinion on the matter. Ralph Waldo Emerson presents another perspective in his manifesto Nature. He says, "It is a sufficient account of that Appearance we call the World, that God will teach a human mind, and so makes it the receiver of a certain number of congruent sensations, which we call sun and moon, man and woman, house and trade." Emerson is one of several great thinkers who suggested that the world around us exists in our minds.
If Emerson's argument has any validity, it is possible to argue that literally everything we perceive is in essence rhetoric. We would be being persuaded by our God, spirits, or minds that the world around us exists. Would that not be the greatest example of rhetoric imaginable?
-Written by Nathan Voeller
I disagree that the rhetor is the one with the power. The audience gives the rhetor power by believing her, but if they don't believe the rhetor, then the rhetor has no power. The audience makes the choice, whether they are fully aware of the choice or not. The rhetor makes decision about what they say structured toward a certain audience, and a successful rhetor will persuade their audience without their audience fully realizing it, but the audience still must make the choice to be persuaded. The rhetor truly has no power at all. This can be seen from a political standpoint. An election essentially shows which political candidate was the most successful rhetor. The candidate who wins persuaded the most people to their side. Although the rhetor persuaded his audience to his side which now puts him into a position of power, the power was in the audience's hands. They made the decision to be persuaded. Rhetors really have no power at all. They have a strong command of words, and the stronger their grasp of language, the better they are at persuasion, but really it is the audience that has the power in the end.
ReplyDeleteI want to say something that is very relevant to this conversation, but all I can think about is how much I enjoyed reading this post - in a humorous, sarcastic, and yet, serious manner.
ReplyDeleteRock on, bro.