Rhetorical Perspective

[Seth L. Kahn-Egan]

Re Peter's responses to my responses to Vershawn's responses to ...
(gasp!):

To me, the rub here is the notion that we're trying to describe rhetoric
as a thing/object--I'm not objecting so much to any particular
objectification, but rather to objectification in any way.  The problem
I'm having is largely syntactic--trying to answer the question "What is
rhetoric?" by saying "Rhetoric is ________" builds in syntactic
constraints that we respond in some kind of noun/adjective form.  I think
recasting the question somehow is the key to resolving this problem, but I
can't quite figure out how to ask it.

As for the argument that "rhetorical perspective" is redundant, I would
only say this--it depends on how "rhetorical" is being used.  From a
disciplinary point of view, there is a "rhetorical perspective" that may
be distinguished from a "discourse-studies perspective" or a "literary
perspective" or what have you.  I'm pretty well convinced that these
shifts in perspective result largely from self-imposed lexicon
constraints, but that doesn't change the fact that they happen.

Happy weekend to all.

Seth

Seth Kahn-Egan
Syracuse University
PhD Student in Composition and Cultural Rhetoric
slkahneg at mailbox.syr.edu
315-423-8042 (home)
____________________________________________________________________
"I'm as schizophrenic as a wet cat that's been beaten."--Kurt Cobain
"You are not what you own."--Fugazi
"You know, for the kids."--Tim Robbins, "The Hudsucker Proxy"
"Dave, I don't think that's a very good idea . . . Dave?"--HAL 9000
"Postmodernists don't agree with themselves."--Xin Liu Gale
"And what costume shall the poor girl wear to all tomorrow's
	parties?"--The Velvet Undergound
"I was saying, 'Let me out of here' before I was even born."--Richard Hell
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."--"Cool Hand Luke"
"It's Now that howls at nothing; it's Now that runs and hides; it's Now
	that winds its spineless coils and slithers out of sight."
	--nomeansno
"If you think you are the only one who got the joke, you shouldn't be
	laughing."--My horoscope for 1-27-99
"The objective of education is not the production of self-confident
	fools."--Jerome Bruner, _The Process of Education_

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Peter Cramer wrote:

> 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.
>