"How we perceive, what we know, what we experience, and how we act are the results of our own symbol use and that of those around us; rhetoric is the term that captures all of these processes. For us, rhetoric is the human use of symbols to communicate."
The article goes on to state that this is a sufficiently broad definition to cover how most people understand the term. It is indeed broad. What we know, experience and do covers the entire human condition. To say all that is due to symbol use, and that symbol use is rhetoric is the equivalent of saying that everything can be viewed as rhetoric. I don't think that rhetoric is quite so broad, but I'll admit that there is plenty of room to make that argument. I believe the intent of the definition is more narrow. Rhetoric is more then just observing a scene or an event. Rhetoric is when you experience something and interpret it as symbolic of something else. For example, experiencing a tragedy and then thinking that God is telling you to change your life is rhetoric. Weather or not God is actually speaking in this case is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that one thing was taken to represent something else is what matters. Foss et al. do not seem to care weather the meaning was purposeful or not, but simply that it was taken symbolically.
I have a Facebook account as do many others. I use it to keep family and friends up to date with what is going on in my life. Most of that provides rather boring examples of rhetoric. Any time we use the written word, we are necessarily using rhetoric. However, what I think is more interesting is the underlying messages we are sending. These messages are derived from symbols that include more then words. They include things such as voice, timing, and sincerity. In many ways this rhetoric is more important to us then the apparent meaning.
Part of the reason I use Facebook is because I am lazy about communicating with people. I prefer to spend my time doing something other then repeating stories about events in my life. Unfortunately, if I don't spend the time telling others about what is going on in my life, my friends and family might think that I don't care (An example of rhetoric I don't intend to send). By posting information about what is happening with my life, the underlying message I'm trying to send is "Hey everyone, I care about you and I haven't forgotten you." I suppose this is the message that a lot of people are trying to send on Facebook. But people send other messages. One of my "friends" in Facebook is running for Benton County Auditor. He's not really my friend. In fact I can't even remember his name to type it in this post. But he sent me a friend request, and I accepted it. He posts comments on a variety of topics, many of which are obviously politically oriented. However his actions of friending me, and posting this information is probably symbolic of something else. The interpretation he is hoping we'll get from these symbols is "I am connected to you, I have your interests at heart and this is why you should vote for me."
These underlying messages are great, but there is a problem. Because it is based on symbols, you can never know if it is representative of the truth. This is where the rub comes in whenever people talk about rhetoric. When something is rhetorical, you are not experiencing it first hand. In the example above, my friends and family don't feel the emotion that I care about them. Nor do I know if the candidate really has my interests at heart. What happens if he isn't concerned about my interests? To use a more concrete example, if I give you a $1000 (a symbol of a quantity of value, is money rhetoric?) you trust that it is authentic. But, if I give you counterfeit money you might act as though it were real, and that could cause you problems. For example when you deposit it in the bank they probably won't accept it, or worse you'll be arrested.
Throughout history, people have argued about the wisdom of emerging communication technologies. Certain philosophers from antiquity condemned rhetoric when it was just an emerging field of study. The catholic church rebuked the printing press for many of the same reasons. And in recent times, many people have criticized the internet. Why do these arguments persist? I contend that it is because they were never resolved. Each new technology has the problem that if its symbols are not used to represent the truth (if they are counterfeit), the technology will have a negative effect on the receivers. But, if they do represent the truth (I'll leave the definition of "the truth" for another day) the person receiving the symbols will be benefited.
Bibliography
(1) Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric.
3rd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2002. Print.
Oh, man--enjoyed reading this, Will. I liked your questions about "truth," and the facebook example.
ReplyDeleteNow--this is a little off topic but why limit rhetoric to symbols? Shouldn't signs be part of it or are they "TRUTH" and so not part of rhetoric?
I think of signs as observations or a point of view of the truth. I think another way to define rhetoric is the process of explaining or describing these points of view. In that way I would consider signs a part of rhetoric, though not directly.
ReplyDeleteI found your comment about the Catholic Church rejecting the printing press interesting. In my Language, Texts, and Technology class, we are learning how the Catholic Church-as well as other powerful entities- rejected the emergent technologies. One of the primary reasons why the Church did not want a printing press is that once commoners became literate, the church could no longer control the rhetoric. Historically, it was commonplace for the clergy to be the only literate people. Because of this, the clergy were privileged and powerful. Controlling a society’s rhetoric is crucial in controlling the society itself. A good example of this is what we consider propaganda.
ReplyDeleteCrowley, David, and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson, 2007. Print.
That is a great point. In addition to demonstrating how powerful rhetoric is it also builds a foundation for an argument supporting efforts to eliminate the digital divide. If we are to continue to live in a democrAtic society, it is crucial that all it's members have the same access to rhetoric otherwise they will be controlled by an elite minority much the same way the priests controlled the population before literacy was widespread.
ReplyDelete