Thomas M. Conley, in Rhetoric in the European Tradition, teaches that "public discussion, where options were debated and consensus sought, was evidently the traditional way in which decisions were reached" (2). In other words, people have been talking each other into things for a very long time.
The type of rhetoric may change, so the story goes, but not the actual idea of "elaboration and rearticulation" (24). Yet, it is arguable that what we are looking at via the Sophists, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates is not just four types of argument, but four distinct personality types persuading us toward their own particular worldviews.
Gorgias, for instance, with the heart of either a politician or a dictator (not sure which), may have called himself a teacher, but he taught the manipulation of audience - not the enlightenment, and a "unilateral transaction between an active speaker and a passive audience" (6) sounds a little like a drug deal to me.
Protagoras, to a lesser extent, and Isocrates, on the other hand, were truly teachers. For them it was not about manipulating the audience nor about finding some immutable Truth - which "for all practical purpose, was held by Protagoras to be inaccessible" (5). For the teacher-personality, rhetoric becomes a way to get everyone on the same civically-minded page.
Plato was a born philosopher. For him, rhetoric was finding and communicating that greater Truth grasped "only by the lover of wisdom who apprehends them as a result of divine inspiration or by recollection ... of them as they were viewed by the soul before birth" (8). I'm guessing he believed he was one such blessed "lover."
Aristotle, Plato's genius student-who-could, felt that rhetoric stood on its own as an art form: reason for reason's sake. Like Isocrates, and Protagoras before him, Aristotle looked at public discourse as the art of seeing possibilities (technically: "probabilities"). Unlike the teachers of art, however, Aristotle was the the artist, with the artist's devotion to product - and not what the product could necessarily bring to the community at large.
Rhetorical style then, I think it can be argued, is a reflection of the personality and the values of the rhetor. Conley's "four basic models" (24), may reflect four possible personality types of thinkers who often are instrumental in changing our world. I haven't yet decided if this thought comforts me or not.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Crowley and the Origins of Consciousness
"Consiousness does not precede, and give birth to, language; rather, it is language that makes consciousness possible." - Hmmm.
Since we're talking deconstruction, we will have to deconstruct the word "consciousness."
I have always wondered about the role language acquisition plays in memory. Can we construct memory without language? And, isn't consciousness just an awareness of ourselves that would of necessity include the process of remembering who and where we've been?
For as long as I can remember, I've had a set of moving pictures in my head for which, until relatively recently, I had no frame of reference:
A very, very small white house, out on a lonely prarie, unpainted wooden steps up to an unpainted wooden porch with whitewashed railings. Inside, the house is very dark and close - though it doesn't feel cramped; I see only a living room (filled with knick-knacks), a kitchen, and a tiny bedroom. A woman lives alone in the house, a woman with hair so long it reaches down to the backs of her knees. I like the woman a lot when I see her, but I'm not sure who she is - I don't even have a name.
I'd held those pictures inside, because I didn't know what they meant; they were simply a part of my knowing of myself. Finally though, I shared this with my mother whose response was:
"Oh, my goodness, that was Aunt Eunice's house in Texas. How on earth could you remember that; you couldn't have been more than a year and a half old when she died."
"But, did I visit her in her home while she was alive?" I asked.
"Yes, many times. You really seemed to love being with her."
My mother always said I learned to speak at an early age - so it is possible these memories could be linked to some rudimentary language development, but I don't think so, simply because there were never (and still aren't) any words or speech of any kind associated with them - just the pictures.
So, which came first: consiousness or language?
Since we're talking deconstruction, we will have to deconstruct the word "consciousness."
I have always wondered about the role language acquisition plays in memory. Can we construct memory without language? And, isn't consciousness just an awareness of ourselves that would of necessity include the process of remembering who and where we've been?
For as long as I can remember, I've had a set of moving pictures in my head for which, until relatively recently, I had no frame of reference:
A very, very small white house, out on a lonely prarie, unpainted wooden steps up to an unpainted wooden porch with whitewashed railings. Inside, the house is very dark and close - though it doesn't feel cramped; I see only a living room (filled with knick-knacks), a kitchen, and a tiny bedroom. A woman lives alone in the house, a woman with hair so long it reaches down to the backs of her knees. I like the woman a lot when I see her, but I'm not sure who she is - I don't even have a name.
I'd held those pictures inside, because I didn't know what they meant; they were simply a part of my knowing of myself. Finally though, I shared this with my mother whose response was:
"Oh, my goodness, that was Aunt Eunice's house in Texas. How on earth could you remember that; you couldn't have been more than a year and a half old when she died."
"But, did I visit her in her home while she was alive?" I asked.
"Yes, many times. You really seemed to love being with her."
My mother always said I learned to speak at an early age - so it is possible these memories could be linked to some rudimentary language development, but I don't think so, simply because there were never (and still aren't) any words or speech of any kind associated with them - just the pictures.
So, which came first: consiousness or language?
Ruszkiewicz: More Debate on Politics... and a Pretty Darn Good Idea
According to Thomas Mattarocci's handout - John Ruszkiewicz "calls into question the right of the teacher to make their own political views those that the student is subjected to in order to learn how to write."
For Min-Zhan Lu and others who argue for a more politicized classroom, this statement assumes that any teacher could walk into a classroom completely free of political agenda in the first place, and that, by not openly confronting subjective leanings, the student is more likely to assume that whatever the instructor says is absolute truth - indicating on a more subtle, therefore incidious way that the student's beliefs are wrong. On the other hand, if the teacher is openly political and encourages the same throughout the class, students may feel more confident in their own agency.
On a lighter note - I really like the concept of following our own writing process as Ruszkiewicz describes in his "Back to the Source" essay - this is another good argument for portfolios in the classroom, especially digital portfolios (even for the teachers).
For Min-Zhan Lu and others who argue for a more politicized classroom, this statement assumes that any teacher could walk into a classroom completely free of political agenda in the first place, and that, by not openly confronting subjective leanings, the student is more likely to assume that whatever the instructor says is absolute truth - indicating on a more subtle, therefore incidious way that the student's beliefs are wrong. On the other hand, if the teacher is openly political and encourages the same throughout the class, students may feel more confident in their own agency.
On a lighter note - I really like the concept of following our own writing process as Ruszkiewicz describes in his "Back to the Source" essay - this is another good argument for portfolios in the classroom, especially digital portfolios (even for the teachers).
Flower's Quest and the Holy Grail of Writing Process
It all sounds so simple - when you hit that wall of writer's block, look at Linda Flower's model, figure out where you're stuck, and the answer will be there waiting for you - to the best of my knowledge, they never found the Holy Grail either.
Sarcasm aside, I do see how it should work, when I am on a writing quest with a specific rhetorical agenda in mind, my hands seem to run over the keyboard as though my mind has pre-loaded the entire paper into my fingertips; whereas, when I'm feeling forced to create an argument out of thin air, pulling sentences out of my head is often painful.
For me, however, this does not lead to a flowchart, so much as the curricular question: How do I create asignments that will stimulate my students toward specific rhetorical agendas?
Sarcasm aside, I do see how it should work, when I am on a writing quest with a specific rhetorical agenda in mind, my hands seem to run over the keyboard as though my mind has pre-loaded the entire paper into my fingertips; whereas, when I'm feeling forced to create an argument out of thin air, pulling sentences out of my head is often painful.
For me, however, this does not lead to a flowchart, so much as the curricular question: How do I create asignments that will stimulate my students toward specific rhetorical agendas?
Mike Rose: Creating Thinkers, Not Students
I have not raised any children - I have raised content, competant adults. I do not intend, in the classroom, to create students - I intend to create thinking human beings.
I completely agree with Rose's assumption that students will give to us what we expect from them - I have always found that to be true of anyone.
I do not know what side of the argument I fall on in terms of whether we teach academic texts, literature, or even Berlin's pop-culture. What I do believe in is Anne Ruggles Gere's assertion that it is motivation that creates good writers, and our job as teachers is to help them find that motivation.
I also agree with Rose that to treat "underprepared" students (of any age, but even more so for older students) as though they are incapable of higher thought is insulting and - I think - counter-productive.
I completely agree with Rose's assumption that students will give to us what we expect from them - I have always found that to be true of anyone.
I do not know what side of the argument I fall on in terms of whether we teach academic texts, literature, or even Berlin's pop-culture. What I do believe in is Anne Ruggles Gere's assertion that it is motivation that creates good writers, and our job as teachers is to help them find that motivation.
I also agree with Rose that to treat "underprepared" students (of any age, but even more so for older students) as though they are incapable of higher thought is insulting and - I think - counter-productive.
Someone Has to Write the Textbooks - John Ramage
By now, anyone who has read any of my blogs, knows I believe in context and creating (constructing) arguments, and I am becoming more and more sure of the necessity of argument (conflict?) in the classroom.
It also has become clear to me that the field of composition has been arguing the same points for many years, to no great effect - there is definitely a need for new blood, here. But, will change ever come via text books, or does change only trickle down slowly into textbooks?
It also has become clear to me that the field of composition has been arguing the same points for many years, to no great effect - there is definitely a need for new blood, here. But, will change ever come via text books, or does change only trickle down slowly into textbooks?
Villanueva and Min-Zhan Lu: The Power of "Red"
In "From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle," Min-Zhan Lu talks about her inner conflict with the word "red." Lu grew up in Maoist China, the daughter of academics who chose English as their "family" language. Lu went to the socialist schools, however, to learn math and science and - inadvertantly learned a whole new language - and a whole new context for language, which, in her article, she embodies in the word "red."
Instead of seeing this as the color of a beautiful rose, at home it became the color of "the commies," at school the color of "revolution." She felt pushed and pulled between meanings, unable, until she was much older, to resolve the two contexts until she was able to accept all parts of her cultural heritage - all parts of herself.
Even in the most seeminly inane comments, teachers can convey to students a difference between the language they enter the classroom with and that which they are expected to use within the classroom - it's another one of those very fine lines we must learn to walk if we are to give every student room to resolve their own inner language struggle and become effective communicators.
Instead of seeing this as the color of a beautiful rose, at home it became the color of "the commies," at school the color of "revolution." She felt pushed and pulled between meanings, unable, until she was much older, to resolve the two contexts until she was able to accept all parts of her cultural heritage - all parts of herself.
Even in the most seeminly inane comments, teachers can convey to students a difference between the language they enter the classroom with and that which they are expected to use within the classroom - it's another one of those very fine lines we must learn to walk if we are to give every student room to resolve their own inner language struggle and become effective communicators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
