Rhetoric has a bad name. RET-OR-ICK. Not appealing. Or Rhett-o-rick. Like Rhett Butler. A guy you could admire without liking. Slippery. And that "or/o" in the middle keeps the first and last syllables from ever having to settle. Do we have to choose one or the other? Who is Rick?
Seriously though. The one other class response I read about rhetoric spoke of politicians, and it wasn't trying to pretty them up. This was "politicians" in the negative sense of the word, using "rhetoric" in the commonly understood sense of the word, also negative.
Rhetoric doesn't have to be that way, though. Much of it is common sense, stuff we use on a daily basis. If you google it's definition, most entries will say something to the effect of using language pleasantly and persuasively. Aren't those typical goals for everyone? Who would prefer that their language was unpleasant and unpersuasive? (Is that a rhetorical question?)
When we speak, write, text, or do whatever it is we are trying to do to communicate with the outside world, we're using rhetoric. Each time we interact, we are naturally considering our audience, our timing, and our decorum. Things that are appropriate to say to classmates aren't always appropriate with professors, and we know that without being told.
This (of course) is an over-simplification. Certainly rhetoric can be used manipulatively. But it is also a necessary part of communication, and one that most of us could stand to study a little bit more.
Anne (from Anne of Green Gables): "I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I was never able to believe it. A rose just couldn't smell as sweet if it was a thistle or a skunk-cabbage."
Raggedy Anne: "Maybe rhetoric is like a skunk-cabbage rose. Its odious name is covering up its sweet side. But I always liked the word 'thistle.' It's kind of soft and pleasant, like whistle with an odd lisp. Not even remotely prickly."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There's so much here to comment on, too bad you didn't make it 4 different posts, I could fill this week's quota!!
I'll try to get to my thoughts in order of occurrence: It IS a bad name, they should have named it something with "flooger", because you can't say that without smiling. Now it reminds me or Rhett Miller, the guy who will steal your girlfriend if you take her to his show.
I agree that it IS common sense, but it's hardly common, which is where my argument starts--I would argue that "we" might do these things, considering timing, decorum, and *gasp* audience...but does the normal man on the street? OR the student in the class? I don't think it comes with a preference for unpleasantness, but rather, and more simply, oversight and lack of attention. I'm not even really chastising those that don't, unless they actually DO ignore it in favor of causing unpleasantness--
I can only say that MOST of my students come into class not realizing that these things matter nearly as much as they should...they rarely contextualize both themselves and their audience, but rather, adopt the shoot from the hip sort of move.
Post a Comment