Rhetorical Perspective

[Peter Cramer]

Like others, I'm troubled by the composition-as-content,
rhetoric-as-method conceptualization.  Seems to me that it may represent
a convenient conceptual grouping based on the common institutional
pairing of rhetoric and comp.  But I think its a curious way of trying
to resolve this difficult conflict:  how to describe rhetoric.

Also, I echo Seth's worries below, about describing rhetoric as an ACT
and as an OBJECT.  I mean, it can be useful to do describe it this way,
but I think it may miss important aspects.  Same with Vershawn's comment
about rhetoric as embodied.  If rhetoric is always the embodied and
situated ACT or always the OBJECT we talk about as "communication", then
what about rhetorical theory?  Presumably many of us in universities
spend time trying to describe and explain rhetorical acts:  Does that
make us "philosophers" and "scientists" of rhetoric?  That is, are we
positioning ourselves to describe it either in terms of *basic concepts*
or in terms of *natural phenomena*?   Are there alternatives?


Excerpts from mail: 3-Feb-99 Re: Rhetorical Perspective by Vershawn A.
Young at AOL.CO
> The mistake that is made is academic discussions and undertakings of rhetoric
> is that individuals seem to extract the act of rhetoric from its user.
> Rhetoric is an embodied phenomenon.  It cannot be understand outside of its
> particular context, nor outside of the rhetor who employed the
strategies that
> compose the rhetorical discourse in question.


Excerpts from mail: 4-Feb-99 Re: Rhetorical Perspective by "Seth L.
Kahn-Egan"@MAIL
> I realize a problem with the way I'm formulating my argument, from reading
> Vershawn's post.  When I suggest rhetoric-as-method, I don't mean to
> divorce it from its users or its purpose.  I only mean to isolate it in
> this way so we can talk about it as a concept.  Of course rhetoric doesn't
> just happen.
>
> Maybe putting it in Burkean terms would help (and again, I'm not entirely
> comfortable with these labels, but for convenience's sake...):
> Act--rhetoric
> Agent--writer/speaker/lawyer/ad exec/artist/etc
> Agency--writing/speech/legal brief/advertisement/painting,music, etc
> Scene--classroom/courtroom/workplace/mass media environment/etc
> Purpose--many...whatever the rhetor means to accomplish
>
> This formulation still suffers from the same problem that my others have,
> namely, that I'm still labelling rhetoric as AN ACT, and hence AN OBJECT.
> Perhaps that's what Vershawn is getting at.