Evolution of General Rhetoric

George A. Kennedy asserts in his article, “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric,” that rhetoric is basically a form of energy.  In order for this claim to remain true, he discusses eight different thesis to support his argument.

        The first thesis is that rhetoric is prior to speech.  This means that the originator of the communication has to experience an exigence.  An exigence is the need to speak out about a certain issue.  If there is no need to speak out, then no speech will occur.

        The second thesis is that the receiver’s interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker’s intent in determining the meaning.  The meaning is what the receiver does as a result of receiving the message.  Therefore, if the receiver does nothing, then the message has no meaning.  This was a bit odd to me because humans ignore one another all of the time or do not respond to some means of communication.  Nevertheless, the content of that communication can have a great impact upon our life.

        The third thesis is that rhetoric is prior to intentionality or to any belief on the part of a speaker about the meaning of a sign or its effect on others.  This means that rhetoric has already occurred before we think about how to use it or how others will receive it.  This was illustrated by humans living episodic lives.

        The fourth and fifth theses are that the function of rhetoric is the survival of the fittest and that the rhetorical code evolves by selective variation.  This was illustrated by animals using rhetoric to warn other members in their group of danger and using rhetoric to woo members of the opposite sex.  This intrigued me because in all of my rhetoric classes, I’ve never stopped to consider the mating call of a bird to be rhetoric, but I guess it is.  This type of rhetoric ensures that the genetic traits of that male bird will be reproduced.

        The sixth thesis is that among the traditional parts of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery) delivery is prior to the others.  This refers to the biological responses or actions that may occur which can be a gesture, facial expression, or etc.  The example is used of a rattlesnake coiling up and shaking its rattle when it feels threatened though the rattlesnake itself is deaf.

        The seventh thesis is that writing is prior to speech but not prior to rhetoric.  I have to disagree with this thesis.  Many humans enact verbal rhetoric on a daily basis without ever writing a word.  I think this rule is only true on occasion.

        The eighth and final thesis is that rhetorical invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery are phenomena of nature and prior to speech.  I must disagree with this thesis as well.  Especially within the human means of rhetoric, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery are not always done mentally.  Consider style.  How do we know what our own style is before we speak it or write it?  Style is developed mentally, but until it is expressed it has no meaning.

        All in all, I like the notion that rhetoric has evolved to a form of energy analogous to electricity and other forms of energy.  However, I do not agree with all of the outlined theses necessary for this claim to hold true.

The Public

In Smith and Hyde’s article entitled, “Rethinking, “The Public,” the discussion of what a public is and how said public functions arises.  At the conclusion of this article, the idea that stuck out the most was the notion suggested by McGee and Martin which challenges the entire concept of a “public”.  I will further illustrate their beliefs using the example of America, the great melting pot.

            The article begins by quoting Aristotle’s definition of a public.  This definition asserts that as individuals people may not have good intentions, but together as a society people will band together for the greater good.  Next, the article cites Lloyd Bitzer’s idea of a public.

Community shares “inherited knowledge” that functions as “source or corner of truths” arising from tradition and that enables a public to be competent when accrediting “new truth and values” authorizing “decision and action”.

This idea adds onto Aristotle’s definition of a public to assert that society or a public will band together for the greater good as well as use its combined knowledge to make decisions regarding the establishment of more accepted truths.  However, this cannot be.

            The American public is said to have an American dream.  This dream is chased by all American citizens and immigrants alike.  As a result, America is the melting pot of the world full of different ethnicities, customs, and ideologies.  All of these differences are set side on a regular basis, but when an incident arises where an individual’s personal beliefs are infringed the individuals of society disembark from the public in effort to have their personal agenda triumph over all others.

            Consider the ground zero Mosque controversy.  Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants felt discriminated against because the common truth in America says everyone has a right to practice freedom of religion, so they should be able to practice their beliefs anywhere within America.  Many Christian Americans believed that building a Mosque next to ground zero after the 9/11 incident was disrespectful to 9/11 victims and their families.  Tensions arose.

            Similarly, the KKK a White extremist group has been known for their acts of racism towards minority groups in America.  Though Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics all have the same rights under the inherited knowledge that the American public shares, this group of individuals banded together to ensure what they believed to be true prevailed.

            The question is, “Why does this happen?”  McGee and Martin provide a sufficient answer.

Competency is actually the product of a deception: ‘instead of knowledge, the people possess ideology, the sham and semblance of truth.’  Individuals must be seduced into abandoning their individuality, convinced of their sociality, not only when their mothers attempt to housebreak them, but also later in life when governors ask them to obey a law or die in a war for God and country.

This answer means that no matter what type of “public” exists, there will always be someone who disagrees with the competency of society.  If that person is then able to persuade others to take their side, then the said “public” will be ever changing.  If that is the case, then there can never be an inherited knowledge based from traditions because the traditions of society will be ever changing. 

            I don’t disagree with the concept of a “public”, however I fail to believe that the public keeps the greater good in mind, especially in a society like America where different groups, people, and ideologies are constantly competing for the spotlight.

Visual Analysis (PETA)

          People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known as PETA, released a controversial internet ad on March 1, 2010 in response to the rising death toll of domesticated animals for food.  The ad depicts a woman (appearing dead) wrapped in plastic with blood splattered from her chest and a food package label that reads “HUMAN MEAT” on the front.  It’s fair to say the picture aroused many emotions as well as reactions.  Some however, don’t coincide with the organizations push for vegan and vegetarianism. 

           This image revolts most any observer at first glance.  The thought of killing a human being and packaging that person to be sold for food is simply inhumane.  Who would do such a thing?  "Only a cannibal would be so cruel," most people would answer.  Cannibals are viewed as nasty soulless monsters with no regards for life other than their own.  A defenseless hands up gesture helps to create a sense of hopelessness for the victim.  The splatter of blood strung across the plastic turns the stomach and makes one woozy.  For the caring soul - mother, nurse, teacher, or friend - the parallel of a human to an animal may subside any cravings for meat.           

            A dominant male personality might also be persuaded to eat less meat by viewing this ad.  The woman in the picture just so happens to possess striking features and an enticing body.  Seeing pretty eyes set off by a few coats of eyeliner, perfectly arched eyebrows, just enough blush to accent the cheekbone, and a little stud in the ear to capture the elegance of her neck, a man might become aroused.  If not, then her near naked body covered only by a nude colored pair of panties will do the trick.  This arousal mixed with lust and the inferior nature modern men associate with women may evoke some level of sympathy for the animals rendered a similar fate.

           On the other hand, this image may cause the viewer to become angry or disgusted with PETA for publishing this ad.  This anger comes from the value of human life.  Some people may feel that under no circumstances is it permissible for an organization to portray a human being as food or the equivalent of an animal because they think the human race is superior to animals.  The notion of being able to stop by Wal-mart on your way home from work to pick up a package of "HUMAN MEAT" should not be downplayed.   "Beep! Your total is going to be $785," isn't funny.  Someone who might feel this way may not be an “animal lover” in the same sense that most individuals in favor of this ad may be. These people may even be scared by the symbol of any human being dropping on the food chain.  These may be the same people who are disgusted by gory horror films like “Chain Saw Massacre” or “Saw”.

           Others may argue this type of advertising is degrading for women.  Many times in advertising and commercialism women are portrayed as objects.  This is evident from the different perfume and lotion bottles shaped to look like a female physique.  Because the model in the image is adorned with earrings and a bracelet and has on her full makeup, viewers may contend that PETA was gearing their focus towards a male audience in a lustful manner.  After all, sex sales.  This use of sex may cause people to associate a negative connotation with this company and all of their efforts.

            The image coaxes consumers to steer clear of eating meat that comes from animals slaughtered for food.  PETA wants to discourage the high consumption of animals we eat.  The people who respond positively to this ad will become more conscious of how much meat they are consuming.  They may not entirely stop eating meat, but they probably won’t eat as much as they had been.  Some people may become vegetarians or vegans depending on how severe they perceive this topic.  However, to think that people will stop eating meat because of one ad is far fetched.  PETA may have intended for this ad to simply draw more attention to their organization and to get more people interested in their cause.

            Overall, this ad works best with the individuals who Aristotle described as being, “quick to shame”.  These people are more likely to perform a self-examination, admit they’ve eaten meat, admit the number of animals killed for food is unreal, and feel compelled to change their participation in this epidemic. 

            All in all, this image does evoke an emotional response from its viewers, but the view may not be the intended response the organization wanted to receive.  In order to cause more widespread participation in their cause, the company should tone down the gore of their ad.

Elderly Men

In chapter 13 page 85 of Book II of "Aristotle," Aristotle talks about his view of the elderly man.  Line 15 he says, "They have lived many years; they have often been taken in, and often made mistakes; and life on the whole is a bad business," which I totally disagree with. 

Most old people I've encountered tend to have a positive outlook on life.  True most of them have made many mistakes, but over the years they learned from those mistakes.  The wisdom they gain has taught them to love life and how to steer clear of the things that can make a person's life "bad business".  Most times the elderly are quick to share the wisdom gained from their years with the younger generations.  Think about, how many times have you heard the story of how your grandparents had to trek to school uphill in the snow and rain.  I have yet to meet an older person who doesn't want to have a little input on how young folks live their lifes.

When Aristotle says in line 27, "They are not generous, because money is one of the things they must have, and at the same time their experience has taught them how hard it is to get and how easy to lose," I think he has part the truth and part untruth as applied to modern society.  Today, it is harder for the elderly to work, so they don't have a steady income.  If they were "generous" they may not be able to eat or afford health insurance. 

Aristotle on Anger

In Book II Chapter 2 page 60 line 1378 of "Aristotle," it says, "It must always be attended by a certain pleasure-that which arises from the expectation of revenge."  I interpreted this to mean that in order for a rhetor to invoke anger within his/her audience that rhetor must embed a component of vengance in their rhetoric.  I disagree.

Consider the ideal American family consisting of a husband, wife, and kids.  Whenever one of the children does something unruly, the mother waits for the father to get home from work then tells him of the misbehavior.  In doing so, the mother utilizes a pathetic appeal which includes evoking anger in her husband.  Sometimes the anger is evoked because the parents have spoken with the child about a particular problem multiple times, yet the child continues to disobey.  Ultimately, the mother wants her husband to punish the child.

Though everyone has experienced their parents' anger, I don't believe most people would say their parents seek revenge in their anger.  In the above example, the mother might create anger within her spouse to lead him to an action, but punishing a child isn't seeking revenge.

That's my take on anger.