Rhetorical Perspective

[Constance J. Ostrowski]

I agree with Georgia's response to Mark's question of "rhetorically
embellished" vs "no rhetoric at all":  rhetoric is, indeed, "always 'there'"
in that rhetoric *is* communication--rhetoric involves what we say, how
we say, to whom we say it, when we say it, and why we say it.

(And here you can probably hear me mounting my soapbox . . .)  Most
certainly the notion of rhetoric as embellishment trivializes the
discipline, and in fact has been one of the primary reason for
rhetoric-bashing over the last 2500 years in Western culture  (I don't
mean to say that rhetoric has been universally disparaged, because most
definitely it hasn't; but when people have criticized or condemned it,
it's partly been because of its alleged role as embellishment).  In fact,
the concept of rhetoric as embellishment, as decoration, as bauble,
has been one of the sources for the view of rhetoric as the opposite of
reality or Truth.  Too often, particularly regarding politicized issues,
people will characterize their position as the Truth, and differing
positions as mere "rhetoric," or ideology that uses linguistic and
psychological tricks to fool, intimidate, or seduce audiences.  Look
at the English expression "the naked truth," which implies an opposite
of clothed falsehood--and clothing has been a metaphor often associated
with rhetoric.  Clothing--and make-up as well--have of course also been
primarily associated in Western culture with women:  women who have some
mysterious power to seduce rational men from the true and right course.
The history of rhetoric (in writings both by many of its theorists as
well as its detractors) is filled with this feminization metaphor
(Rhetoric has been called "the Harlot of the arts," among other--and
sometimes less pejorative--feminizing metaphors).

One of my current projects concerns this very subject of the use of
feminizing metaphors about rhetoric as a whole (and specifically about
metaphor) in Western culture, in relationship to (ironically) the
exclusion of women from public rhetorical activity.


Now (with only one foot on the soapbox), I want to take this back to Mark's
original post involving the question of rhetorical "embellishment" and
"no rhetoric at all."  He went on to suggest that the two different
documents he referred to could convey the "same barebones message," but
"What's lost? . . . and does it matter?"

My belief on this issue is that two documents with different styles can
absolutely convey the same "barebones message"--the same data.  However,
what's lost is meaning.  Meaning is not the same as information or data:
meaning is the product of how the data is organized, and what words are
used, which brings in such issues as level of formality, level of
technicality, tone . . .  So, definitely it does matter.  Style is not
simply form, style is not divorced from meaning; on the contrary, style
helps create meaning.

I have a final comment, which should actually come before I partially
stepped down from the soapbox; unfortunately, it's extremely difficult
to edit on my e-mail system once I've started a new line of text, so it's
coming here:

Regarding the issue of "embellishment," I want to say that this concept
is the unfortunate result of problematic translations of Latin rhetorical
works.  "Ornatus" (under which metaphor is often classed) has generally
been translated in our modern sense of "ornament"--something decorative,
but unnecessary.  It is true that in Latin "ornatus" did have as one of
its meanings "ornament"; however, it also meant "equipment"--the
instruments needed to accomplish a task.  Yet translators have fixed on
the "ornament" sense (and I can't get into this here--but I dealt with
this issue in my dissertation regarding the stubborn insistence throughout
post-Classical Western history to see metaphor as an ornament).

Enough orating at the moment.

Connie Ostrowski
ostroc at rpi.edu  (alum account)