Look on the bright side

To me the most meaningful discussion surrounding the presentations this week was that of feminism. Locke presented himself in a way that was a bit pretentious when he made the statement “All men are created equal” at such a tumultuous time. While Hume shocked a lot of us with his statement that women should read more history in order to contribute to men’s conversation better. It was very easy and quite tempting for me to get very angry about these statements, but as I left class I tried to remember that these were times in history where thoughts about women were different for the masses.

So in my attempt to look at the position in this situation, I decided to see this as a testament to how far the view of women has come. I applaud Locke’s bold statement which contributed to America’s history in a way he did not intend, because whatever his intentions, it did affect history in ways that are still very positive. This statement has shaped the way America has evolved and how certain minority groups, including women, have come out with their own voices and fought to include themselves in this statement.

Hume’s statement that “only a woman who was acquainted with the history of her own country, and with those of Greece and Rome, could engage in conversation which ‘can afford any entertainment to men of sense and virtue, ’” seems shocking to us women now, but this was a step in the ways of women’s rights at the time that we have to appreciate. If men like Hume wouldn’t have started us somewhere, although the step may seem small, then we would not have gotten to a point where we are now.

I’m not saying that women have it made these days. I’ve experienced sexism in my life, as I’m sure all women have. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge our progress thus far in order to move us into more progress in the (hopefully near) future.

What's wrong with computers?

In Richard Enos’ “Rediscovering the Lost Art of Researching the History of Rhetoric,” Enos urges rhetoricians to be historians. He says at the end of his article that “all that is necessary for ignorance to prevail in our discipline is for historians of rhetoric to forget their primary job of doing history.”

I think it is very easier for students to get stuck in the virtual world of doing research in a solitary state, and yes, computers are to blame for our recluse ways of doing research. It is too easy for us to sit at home by ourselves in front of our computer while searching Google Scholar for secondary source articles about our topics, but I think there is also so much value in our new technologies that we need to appreciate.

When I am getting through a class that requires research, I turn to the internet and nothing else, but this allows me to accomplish my goal and then move on to something else. I can devote less time to the means of doing research and concentrate on the end: the actual material that I’m learning from. I am able to access a search engine full of information stored in the mysterious universe of cyber space, but the point is that I have it in front of me, even on a computer screen to read through and process.

It is very important for historians of rhetoric to maintain the history of the rhetoric that has influenced us now, yes. Without it we would not have evolved into the students and institutions that we are, but does that mean we should stop the evolution that is happening with how we research?

Audience in Argumentation

In "The Social Contexts of Argumentation," Chaim Perelman talks in the beginning about the relationship between argumentation and audience.

"The development of all argumentation is a function of the audience to which it is addressed and to which the speaker is to adapt himself." (or herself) (252-53)

Perelman is saying that the speaker (writer or orator) has an obligation to the audience. A speaker must adapt to his/her audience in order for argumentation to be successful and for it to be argumentation. The difficulty in this is analyzing a diverse audience and convincing those who are different of the same end.

“The diversity of audience is extreme. They can vary quantitatively from the speaker himself… right up to the totality of beings capable of reason – that universal audience which is then not a concrete social reality but a construction of the speaker based on elements in his experience.” (253)

I think Perelman is pointing out a skill that is not only useful to a writer/speaker, but to an individual functioning in a society.

Perelman also points out the importance of language in argumentation and how we must change it as our audience changes:

“The effective exercise of argumentation assumes a means of communication, a common language without which there can be no contact of minds.”

The author also points out the importance of rationality in argumentation:

“Precedent plays a quite primary role in argumentation, the rationality of which is linked with the observance of the rule of justice, which demands equal treatment for similar situations.

Again this ties into the overall theme of audience. You must (as a writer) decide what each audience holds to be true as a precedent and appeal to that which is already assumed. The author is speaking about the rule of justice in relation to history; therefore the obligation lies with the speaker in knowing the past precedents. Learning how each audience fells and thinks about similar situations depends on research into the past.

Perelman says, “These precedents, just like the models by which a society is inspired, make part of its cultural tradition, which can be reconstructed on the basis of the argumentations in which they have been employed.” On the basis of which audience is being spoken to. (254)

There is a reason the core of composition papers is based on getting students to make an argument and know how to back it up. In order to do this, instructors ask for research as evidence and provide the tools of persuasion in the form of ethos, logos and pathos. Everything a student does in preparation for their comp papers is based on supporting their argument of making it convincing. It’s my belief that recognizing audience is an important life skill, and part of my personal pedagogy. We must consider our audience in everything that we do while functioning in the world.