Rhetorical Perspective

[John Bernard Bate]

Regarding James and Zouhair's discussion about a distinct rhetorical
perspective:

I think taking a comparative approach, to begin with, might help delineate
what a 'rheotical perspective' might be.  Is not the such a perspective a
socially and historically specific ideology of language?  That is, is not
'rhetoric' one of the basic ideas westerners have developed over the years
regarding what language is, how it works, and what kinds of persons can do
what kinds of things in and in terms of any particular language?  Does it
not also have a very particular model of discursive interaction associated
with it (i.e. the rhetor/multitude, the single speaker addressing a large
group)?  In India, specifically Tamil south India, no such model of
discursive interaction was depicted in some 2,000 years of continuous
literary production until 1893 when a king, for the first time, addresses
his troops massed before his fortress walls.  Kings -- or minister or other
high status individuals -- NEVER address audiences; there are dialogues but
no rhetors/multitudes.  No Ciceros.  Indeed, considering the tradition of
poetic praise of apical entities (kings, gods, etc) the multitude addressed
the king!  Similarly, nothing resembling Aristotle's _Rhetoric_, no thesis
outlining the 'arts of pursuasion,'  was produced in Tamil until 1949.
(They've been coming thick and fast since then!)  2,000 years of continuous
production.  Fantasitically complex grammars and poetics throughout.  But no
rhetorcs, per se.  There are other ideologies at play here which I won't go
into now.  But it seems to me that the 'rhetorical perspective' may
profitably be parochialized a bit in order to contrast that particular
ideology of language with others that may be at play in different places and
times.

Barney
_____________________________
Bernard Bate
5311 S. Woodlawn, #1
Chicago, IL 60615

h 773.684.0991