Rhetorical Perspective

[doug sweet]

I've been reading this list and thinking the last three or so days, and with
great trepidation I suggest that "Rhetorical Perspective" is redundant, and
that therein lies the discussion.

----------
>From: "Constance J. Ostrowski" <ostroc at RPI.EDU>
>To: DISCOURS at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU
>Subject: Re: Rhetorical Perspective
>Date: Fri, Feb 5, 1999, 6:53 AM
>

>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)
>