After reading about the early years of Aurelius Augustinus, who came to be known as St. Augustine of Hippo, I find it fascinating how he applies his rhetorical training to his religious documents. While he clearly points out that he is not planning to enumerate on the rules of rhetoric, he certainly alludes to and uses the method by which he thinks such rules are established. He talks about emulation. Here I gather a dual meaning in both emulation of the character of a man as well as the way he presents his oratory. I am not certain whether Augustine was considered primarily a speaker or a writer. He writes about speaking, but our textbooks emphasize his written work (Bizzell and Herzberg, pp. 382-383). Perhaps, he was more of an orator in his earlier years of teaching. This would be fitting considering his rhetorical education in Carthage, and the emphasis on speaking from Greek and Roman texts. After his conversion to Christianity, he seems to have focused more on documentation, considering he now had much greater access to scripture. He lived a decently long life of 77 years, marked by consistent passion across many fronts (Herrick, pp. 125, 128). I would imagine that Plato would approve of Augustine's commitment to absolute truth from divinity while Cicero (through the character Crassus in Of Oratory) might praise Augustine for his natural gifts that were further polished through training (though Augustine might have claimed that they were much improved through his conversion). As I think about Augustine's discussion on eloquence and wisdom, I'm also drawn back to the long explanations of virtues from Aristotle.
We can see the great recycling that occurs as new authors attempt to explain rhetoric during subsequent times and ages. I think it is fair to say that we do likewise. In fact, in this course, especially in writing for our three projects, it's almost a game to try to apply the rules and/or exemplars of specific rhetoricians. For example, I've been trying to come up with enthymeme in Aristotelian style for my second project while hoping to create a metaphor that refutes Plato’s mind/body battle within my third project. My examples have ranged from boring to ridiculous, and in doing such practices, I realize the challenge of explaining something so non-containable like rhetoric or philosophy. So what do I turn to? Well, just like Augustine states, I turned to examples. Augustine looked to speeches and discourses to learn about eloquence. I have been turning to Dr. Ken Baake’s book on metaphor to gather examples of what works and what becomes more problematic. As eloquence is to wisdom for Augustine, metaphors are to explanation for me (see Bizzell and Herzberg, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, p. 388). Writers then and writers now are often looking not only to explain something, but also to emphasize the positive or negative qualities that such an item or concept carry (in the writer's opinion of course). In my writing and in his, we both seem to be looking for the right combination of virtues. For Augustine, who lived during the time of further establishment of what liberal arts meant (consider that Martianus Capella published his work The Marriage of Philology and Mercury the year before Augustine died), he was also versed in what it meant to have a right combination of learned subjects. As an example of one such subject, Augustine pulls rhetoric into scriptural examination and missionary-like expounding (Herrick, pp. 125, 130). He does this by explaining to his readers how delicious the two are together. I think his quote regarding wisdom and eloquence, virtues which he certainly uses as he pulls together rhetoric and scripture for the purpose of teaching Christian concepts, is also appropriate here: “But as often even bitter medicine must be taken, so always harmful sweets must be avoided. Still, what is better than wholesome sweets or sweet wholesomeness [read, in this case: rhetoric and scripture]? For the greater the desire of sweets [read: the pleasing way in which rhetoric convinces and converts] in such a case, the more readily does their wholesomeness [read: the Gospel] prove beneficial” (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 389, Herrick, p. 126). It becomes ever more evident how easily we can perform a mental trackback as we read the actual works of these rhetoricians.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Are my beliefs and actions more platonic or more sophistic?
My answer is heavily influenced by both the work I do, the cross-disciplinary nature of my work, and by the core beliefs that we teach at my place of work. I’ve been a Chief Operating Officer at Greenbrier Academy for Girls, and in that position, I often analyzed our business decisions based on the model that we embody: relationality. The gist of relationality at the therapeutic boarding school for struggling teenage girls is that virtue-giving and -receiving relationships lead to better mental wellbeing. What a great topic to study in this class!
When my husband was offered a position at a med school last month, I had to step down from my position (as it is quite difficult to manage day-to-day matters living a state away). Now I’m doing research for the school and continuing writing about the model. Already we have hit on some philosophical viewpoints from Aristotle and Plato that contribute to our company’s model. Yet, much to my surprise, the Sophists have also contributed to our current ways of thinking.
We certainly belief and teach that our word are influential and important, that our rhetoric can be impactful on even our mental wellbeing and that of those around us. And, like the Sophists, our employees are paid to model and teach positive relationships that are associated with our words and actions.
On the other hand, this model itself has two camps: strong relationality and weak relationality. The laughable part is that BOTH camps define themselves as strong relationality and the other as weak relationality. Our view contends that a person’s spiritual or religious component of their life (or choice to not have this as an aspect of their life) influences their relationships. We are extremely contextually oriented so we believe that all aspects are influential. This adds a potential component for absolute truth in the sense that Plato would understand it. YET, to complicate matters, we view truth (or as we usually term it, virtue) as contextual [read: truth is not absolute but is contextual]. It’s almost Platonic with a twist of Sophistic. Here’s an example my supervisor often uses.
In the 1940s, there was a family living in Nazi Germany. The mother was trying to teach her children good morals through leading by example. One day the Gestapo knock on the door of their home. The mother answers and is asked if her children are at home. She is faced with the dilemma of telling the truth or protecting her children. What are her options? Here the mother faces two values (or virtues): honesty and loyalty. According to abstract truth, principles are unchangeable. In other words, it is always wrong to lie. Abstract truth is outside of context. Here, in the story above, we do have a context. How is truth situated in the story’s context?
Relational truth rejects the idea of contextlessness. Contextlessness in abstractionism is apparent because truth is thought to transcend specific experiences. In other words, truth is seen as universal because it is not bound to specific experiences. Since it is not associated with context, there is no question about whether or not the mother in the story above should tell the truth. Abstract truth says one should always be honest. Relational truth, however, looks at the situation and asks what is the best solution across multiple values.
What is the difference between relational truth and abstract truth? We make decisions based on virtue in context, seeking to make the best choice for all involved. Note that we are not promoting relativity, which is the idea that there is no right or wrong. Rather, we are asking the question, “What is the most virtuous choice for the situation?”
As you can see from the rather lengthy explanation I’ve gone into, my hand reach to both the sophist and platonic belief systems and use information from both.
When my husband was offered a position at a med school last month, I had to step down from my position (as it is quite difficult to manage day-to-day matters living a state away). Now I’m doing research for the school and continuing writing about the model. Already we have hit on some philosophical viewpoints from Aristotle and Plato that contribute to our company’s model. Yet, much to my surprise, the Sophists have also contributed to our current ways of thinking.
We certainly belief and teach that our word are influential and important, that our rhetoric can be impactful on even our mental wellbeing and that of those around us. And, like the Sophists, our employees are paid to model and teach positive relationships that are associated with our words and actions.
On the other hand, this model itself has two camps: strong relationality and weak relationality. The laughable part is that BOTH camps define themselves as strong relationality and the other as weak relationality. Our view contends that a person’s spiritual or religious component of their life (or choice to not have this as an aspect of their life) influences their relationships. We are extremely contextually oriented so we believe that all aspects are influential. This adds a potential component for absolute truth in the sense that Plato would understand it. YET, to complicate matters, we view truth (or as we usually term it, virtue) as contextual [read: truth is not absolute but is contextual]. It’s almost Platonic with a twist of Sophistic. Here’s an example my supervisor often uses.
In the 1940s, there was a family living in Nazi Germany. The mother was trying to teach her children good morals through leading by example. One day the Gestapo knock on the door of their home. The mother answers and is asked if her children are at home. She is faced with the dilemma of telling the truth or protecting her children. What are her options? Here the mother faces two values (or virtues): honesty and loyalty. According to abstract truth, principles are unchangeable. In other words, it is always wrong to lie. Abstract truth is outside of context. Here, in the story above, we do have a context. How is truth situated in the story’s context?
Relational truth rejects the idea of contextlessness. Contextlessness in abstractionism is apparent because truth is thought to transcend specific experiences. In other words, truth is seen as universal because it is not bound to specific experiences. Since it is not associated with context, there is no question about whether or not the mother in the story above should tell the truth. Abstract truth says one should always be honest. Relational truth, however, looks at the situation and asks what is the best solution across multiple values.
What is the difference between relational truth and abstract truth? We make decisions based on virtue in context, seeking to make the best choice for all involved. Note that we are not promoting relativity, which is the idea that there is no right or wrong. Rather, we are asking the question, “What is the most virtuous choice for the situation?”
As you can see from the rather lengthy explanation I’ve gone into, my hand reach to both the sophist and platonic belief systems and use information from both.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Persuasion and Delivery
Persuasive writing has many forms of genre, some liked more than others as we saw in Phaedrus. Due to the time period in which we are in as well as my own choices of career path, I spend a fair share of my time in written composition. Much of it is not persuasive by my own assessment, but maybe there is some element of persuasion to, say, technical writing. For example, I am seeking to convince the reader that, yes, he or she can in fact do this task on their own. Just follow these easy, concise steps.
Through our readings, I have become more acutely aware of my own decisions in written and verbal wording as they relate to persuasiveness and argument presentation. Aristotle’s canon of delivery has changed through the centuries, yet we still apply delivery in our current documents and speeches. I apply Aristotle’s conceptualization of delivery when I present at a conference or in a work meeting or even at the ‘nar by using voice intonation and hand gesturing. Aristotle would surely consider me a novice in these areas in terms of my lack of formal training in how to hold my hands just so, but I do recall an undergraduate speech class in which I was taught to avoid holding your hands in the fig leaf position. (If you want clarification, just say so.) But writing now also requires delivery. And furthermore, in the digital and mobile ages, the speech is coming back for the scholar and regular individual.
Publishing an article, an act encouraged in nearly every class I’ve taken at TTU, generally begins with the proposal. Proposal delivery is in itself a genre, really an art. The reviews may ask: What makes this proposal for this article worthy of inclusion in our publication? Why does this topic and this investigation merit our attention and the attention of our readers? Certainly, persuasive powers are at play when the author creates a proposal that elevates his or her work as significant enough, thorough enough, rigorous enough to pass the gatekeepers of a particular journal. Between what the author intends and what the reviewers perceive, effective uses of the canons help convey the concepts so understood by author yet most times exclusively represented to the reviewers by a brief series of paragraphs. Language, it seems, is symbolic of the author’s profession and ability to advance that profession through contributing to a larger conversation in problem solving and knowledge-building.
If rhetoric is not only the tool for persuasion but also the outcome and product (in the actual written or spoken word) prior to someone else acting (publishing, funding, or perpetuating a call to action), then honing such skills seems applicable as much now as it was in previous times. While we laugh at the ridiculous (as it was described in the MOO last week) level of intensity on the components of rhetorical style (i.e. exhaustive options for salutations), couldn’t we come up with a pretty exhaustive list of say, ways we correct student’s papers (which get fairly nitty-gritty for some instructors) or the exact wording typically used to question writers if we are editing? I also chuckled at the drawings around page 742 of Rhetorical Tradition. These show renditions of positions of orators (both entire body and just hand movements). Yet, we could easily make a similar drawing of, again going back to the professor or instructor as an example, the typical positions of teaching. I know I have some specific ways I move my own hands or expressions I use (unconsciously or not) to make my own points in various contexts. This is why I find the face recognition software fascinating, especially where it analyzes expression and perceived feelings.
In the ages of oratory as profession, the times we read about through Gorgias, Plato, and Aristotle’s featured pieces this week, I think about the way these individuals delivered their proposal. (I assume they had to offer a proposal prior to getting individuals to attend a speech or enroll at their school or otherwise become engaged in the art and learning of rhetoric.) They had to use a quick, likely dramatic verbal advertisement to convince the people to fork over some money to take their class or to listen to their artful explanation on a subject. It was their ability to convince the audience that their presentation was worthy of further time, attention, and funds that enabled them to work in the orator profession. Wide knowledge would allow them to effectively answer questions and impromptu challenges, for which our books say they permitted time.
What I find contradictory is the notion that these elements can be so rigidly broken down. Maybe that has been the issue over time. And why, with such a variety of contexts, so many “new” views on rhetoric can be proposed. With no one-size-fits-all formula (which Socrates in Phaedrus expresses), it reminds me of a self-help presentation. Then it was self-help on conversation…sort of a how-to that crossed many areas of verbal self-defending, presentation of ideas, perpetuation of arguments, etc. The task was really far more than learning the canons (or other formally compartmentalized explanations) of components of speech and composition. The goal was to find the right tone, adapting as the conversation ensued or as new players in the conversation spoke up, and play the game of inclusion in one’s strategy to convince others to see their views (or fund their whatever or join their group).
Likewise, we search for the most effective language in today’s appropriate organizational structures in our formal and informal work. Then and today, people seek to speak to the audience (whether that be the Board at work, the proposal reviews of a journal, the book club, the community organization, the in-laws, or the four kids in the backseats) in a way that inclusively pulls more people toward their logic, persuasion, strategy, and decision.
Through our readings, I have become more acutely aware of my own decisions in written and verbal wording as they relate to persuasiveness and argument presentation. Aristotle’s canon of delivery has changed through the centuries, yet we still apply delivery in our current documents and speeches. I apply Aristotle’s conceptualization of delivery when I present at a conference or in a work meeting or even at the ‘nar by using voice intonation and hand gesturing. Aristotle would surely consider me a novice in these areas in terms of my lack of formal training in how to hold my hands just so, but I do recall an undergraduate speech class in which I was taught to avoid holding your hands in the fig leaf position. (If you want clarification, just say so.) But writing now also requires delivery. And furthermore, in the digital and mobile ages, the speech is coming back for the scholar and regular individual.
Publishing an article, an act encouraged in nearly every class I’ve taken at TTU, generally begins with the proposal. Proposal delivery is in itself a genre, really an art. The reviews may ask: What makes this proposal for this article worthy of inclusion in our publication? Why does this topic and this investigation merit our attention and the attention of our readers? Certainly, persuasive powers are at play when the author creates a proposal that elevates his or her work as significant enough, thorough enough, rigorous enough to pass the gatekeepers of a particular journal. Between what the author intends and what the reviewers perceive, effective uses of the canons help convey the concepts so understood by author yet most times exclusively represented to the reviewers by a brief series of paragraphs. Language, it seems, is symbolic of the author’s profession and ability to advance that profession through contributing to a larger conversation in problem solving and knowledge-building.
If rhetoric is not only the tool for persuasion but also the outcome and product (in the actual written or spoken word) prior to someone else acting (publishing, funding, or perpetuating a call to action), then honing such skills seems applicable as much now as it was in previous times. While we laugh at the ridiculous (as it was described in the MOO last week) level of intensity on the components of rhetorical style (i.e. exhaustive options for salutations), couldn’t we come up with a pretty exhaustive list of say, ways we correct student’s papers (which get fairly nitty-gritty for some instructors) or the exact wording typically used to question writers if we are editing? I also chuckled at the drawings around page 742 of Rhetorical Tradition. These show renditions of positions of orators (both entire body and just hand movements). Yet, we could easily make a similar drawing of, again going back to the professor or instructor as an example, the typical positions of teaching. I know I have some specific ways I move my own hands or expressions I use (unconsciously or not) to make my own points in various contexts. This is why I find the face recognition software fascinating, especially where it analyzes expression and perceived feelings.
In the ages of oratory as profession, the times we read about through Gorgias, Plato, and Aristotle’s featured pieces this week, I think about the way these individuals delivered their proposal. (I assume they had to offer a proposal prior to getting individuals to attend a speech or enroll at their school or otherwise become engaged in the art and learning of rhetoric.) They had to use a quick, likely dramatic verbal advertisement to convince the people to fork over some money to take their class or to listen to their artful explanation on a subject. It was their ability to convince the audience that their presentation was worthy of further time, attention, and funds that enabled them to work in the orator profession. Wide knowledge would allow them to effectively answer questions and impromptu challenges, for which our books say they permitted time.
What I find contradictory is the notion that these elements can be so rigidly broken down. Maybe that has been the issue over time. And why, with such a variety of contexts, so many “new” views on rhetoric can be proposed. With no one-size-fits-all formula (which Socrates in Phaedrus expresses), it reminds me of a self-help presentation. Then it was self-help on conversation…sort of a how-to that crossed many areas of verbal self-defending, presentation of ideas, perpetuation of arguments, etc. The task was really far more than learning the canons (or other formally compartmentalized explanations) of components of speech and composition. The goal was to find the right tone, adapting as the conversation ensued or as new players in the conversation spoke up, and play the game of inclusion in one’s strategy to convince others to see their views (or fund their whatever or join their group).
Likewise, we search for the most effective language in today’s appropriate organizational structures in our formal and informal work. Then and today, people seek to speak to the audience (whether that be the Board at work, the proposal reviews of a journal, the book club, the community organization, the in-laws, or the four kids in the backseats) in a way that inclusively pulls more people toward their logic, persuasion, strategy, and decision.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Connection between Rhetoric and Psychology
I have been pleasantly surprised by the recurring connection I am seeing between rhetoric and psychology. Naturally, I have understood that the conversation between therapist and patient is developed through rhetoric. But I had not envisioned this course being so highly aligned with my own interests. In fact, as I suggested my areas of study for our course projects, I wondered if I was pushing too hard in the direction of psychology. But our readings have confirmed that a connection is already there and that there will be many further readings to help ground me in the rhetoric of psychology. Just in the first few blurbs from our assigned readings this week, I am finding ways to expand my current suggested projects. In addition, Barbara Mirel, Ellen Barton, and Mark Ackerman have done a study on the development of distance assessment tools for emotionally unstable patients. Their project, published in Technical Communication Quarterly in 2008 under the title “Researching Telemedicine: Capturing Complex Clinical Interactions with a Simple Interface Design”, used a time-stamping tool developed by a team of technical communicators to help counselors record data in real-time during sessions with rural or incarcerated or otherwise distanced patients. This form of telemedicine assessment and treatment established the amount of time counselors and patients spend talking in the following categories: opening, monitoring compliance, measuring outcomes, and closing (Mirel et al., pp. 365-370). I find that these categories could easily be compared to Aristotle’s introduction, issue, argument, and conclusion (Rhetorical Tradition, p. 5). Essentially, the therapeutic session can be (a) an argument (possibly more appropriately termed in this situation as the presentation of solutions or attempt to problem solve) from the counselor to the patient, (b) a presentation from the patient to the counselor, or better yet (c) a mutual presentation and system for working out issues and solutions.
The four categories above were completed in real-time with little to no impact on the flow of the telephone conversation, and subsequently the following areas were coded: patient education, problem solving, and patient self-management (Mirel et al., p. 367). Through this data and by listening to the wording, conversation flow, and presentation of suggested solutions in a series of therapeutic sessions, Mirel et al. designed a research tool to qualitatively and quantitatively capture interactions between care takers and patients. The intervention from technical communicators solved the problem of needed assessment tools to gauge the use of telemedicine treatment as well as served to create a simple interface design that gathered data about distance clinical interactions. I see many opportunities to further assess such rhetoric through the recreation of this project or something similar.
The presentation of psychology and rhetoric through the ages indicates that Aristotle was much more concerned with audience psychology than some of the rhetoricians that followed him (Rhetorical Tradition, p. 12). I'll be paying special attention to the approach that different authors take in presentation and word choice as I relate that to the therapeutic session as well as to how specific models of psychology employ past and current rhetorical elements. After reading Gorgias’ “Encomium of Helen”, I am starting to see a long history of using words (persuasive words) to spark, alter, or even heal human mental tendencies. It would be fascinating to follow this piece that compares rhetoric to powerful drugs that alter the mind and body to modern combinations of psychotherapy and psychiatry.
References:
Gorgias. Encomium of Helen. Accessed 1 Sept 2010 online at http://www.phil.vt.edu/MGifford/phil2115/Helen.htm
Mirel, B., Barton, E., & Ackerman, M. (2008). Researching telemedicine: Capturing complex clinical interactions with a simple interface design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 358-378.
Rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. (2000). Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
The four categories above were completed in real-time with little to no impact on the flow of the telephone conversation, and subsequently the following areas were coded: patient education, problem solving, and patient self-management (Mirel et al., p. 367). Through this data and by listening to the wording, conversation flow, and presentation of suggested solutions in a series of therapeutic sessions, Mirel et al. designed a research tool to qualitatively and quantitatively capture interactions between care takers and patients. The intervention from technical communicators solved the problem of needed assessment tools to gauge the use of telemedicine treatment as well as served to create a simple interface design that gathered data about distance clinical interactions. I see many opportunities to further assess such rhetoric through the recreation of this project or something similar.
The presentation of psychology and rhetoric through the ages indicates that Aristotle was much more concerned with audience psychology than some of the rhetoricians that followed him (Rhetorical Tradition, p. 12). I'll be paying special attention to the approach that different authors take in presentation and word choice as I relate that to the therapeutic session as well as to how specific models of psychology employ past and current rhetorical elements. After reading Gorgias’ “Encomium of Helen”, I am starting to see a long history of using words (persuasive words) to spark, alter, or even heal human mental tendencies. It would be fascinating to follow this piece that compares rhetoric to powerful drugs that alter the mind and body to modern combinations of psychotherapy and psychiatry.
References:
Gorgias. Encomium of Helen. Accessed 1 Sept 2010 online at http://www.phil.vt.edu/MGifford/phil2115/Helen.htm
Mirel, B., Barton, E., & Ackerman, M. (2008). Researching telemedicine: Capturing complex clinical interactions with a simple interface design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 358-378.
Rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. (2000). Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)