RT 1206-1226

Mikhail Bakhtin 1895-1975
Throughout this reading I found a few particular things to be the most interesting about Mikhail's view on speech and discussion. He defines speech and  discussion between a speaker and addressee as an act involving both parties inevitably. He says, "even if a word is not entirely his , constituting, as it were the border zone between herself and his addressee - still it does in part belong to him". This quote implies that a conversation does not belong to one part or the other, it is an extension of the relationship between two speakers and as Mikhail says, it is an "intentional negotiation of meaning and interpretation between author and reader". By having a discussion each party is adjusting the atmosphere of definitions and meanings they bring to the conversation with the words that they speak between them. In this way a conversation, even one that is one sided, takes input from both the author and addressee. This is reminiscent of the dialectic style the greeks used.
Verbal interaction is the basis and fundamental start of dialogue and language, where the interpretations differ based on the individual nuances and changes in individual's perceptions of meaning and intent - "emphasizes polyphony of language seen this way , the heteroglossia of speech and texts that are subject to multiple interpretations". Mikhail discusses how rhetorics changes have led to uses more widely than before, it had become be used for creative writing and personal writing more, as well as the application of sciences (such as psychology) to writing and the rhetorical principles of argument. One last interesting quote talking about peasant type people, who each individually suffering from hunger and poverty, and the way this structuring of oopressionprevented uprising and group collective to fight back, "Such a collective lacks the unitary material frame necessary for united action. Resigned but unashamed and undermining apprehension of one's own hunger will be the rule under such conditions - "everyone bears it, you must bear it, too." Here grounds are furnished for development of the philosophical and religious systems of the non resistor or fatalist type" (p1217).

ARCS Ch 12; RT 1031-1044, 1061-1085

Delivery and Memory: Attending to Eyes and Ears
The importance of speaking has changed from the ancient times with Cicero and other rhetors. This is made clear through the shift in reliance on memory to written "memories", and wider audiences. these changes led to the focus of importance to written rhetoric from oral.
I think it is interesting to note this quote from pg 327,  "orators act in real life, whereas actors mimic reality (De Oratore III lvi 214-15)." This is one specificity defining oral rhetors in the time, emphasizing the importance of delivery - their personalized and stylized performance of speech.
Style, memory, and delivery. These canons are demonstrated to be important principles in the changing progression of rhetoric. Since ancient times memory has become more external - as in written and stored instead of the strict mental memorization mastered by ancient rhetors.
I was happy to read about he section devoted to "Correctness: Traditional Grammar and Usage" where defined are the ever-changing do's ad don't of what is 'proper' English grammar, and why the rules of grammar and correctness should be allowed to change and grow with the languages developments themselves as well.

ARCS CH10; RT enlightenment

After writing my essay, and reading these readings, I have come to recognize more of the importance that the 5 canons have, especially style. I wrote in my Essay 2, that style is important in written rhetoric to relate your audience and build your own distinct voice. Style becomes important to pay attention to and requires a concise knowledge of the voice you want to portray. I have always found this difficult, if my voice is the only one I have ever written in, how can I identify the parts that make it distinct? Here is where invention can take on a new role, and be important for analyzing and distinguishing between what makes my writing and my voice different from others'. Creating a voice contributes to style - which has a heightened importance in written rhetoric because of the variety of interpretations that an audience makes.
This reading emphasizes the importance of style. Style helps to clothe ideas - dressed up or dressed down - for the occasion and audience where it will be presented. it includes things like sentence structure and length, word choice, and writer's voice. The downside to style in writing is the difference that different readers interpret it. the best way to have strong style is to be aware and strong in your voice - something that experienced rhetors learn to get better at.

Essay 2, Revolution of Rhetoric

Alayna Wagers

Eng 360

Essay 2

11/4/12

Revolution of Rhetoric

Rhetoric's many facets, are changed and manipulated by the way they are delivered; particularly when a written argument versus one recited orally. Writing influences an audience in different ways than oral reception does – these changes in the perception of the argument received are necessary to acknowledge in order to develop the best argument in each form possible. The effect of written rhetoric on an audience must be understood in order for the author to effectively deliver his/her message. What are the changes in the effect that oral vs written rhetoric have? The five canons of rhetoric; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery – must be looked at differently when used in these two, seemingly similar, ways.

Lets take a step back and look into history, as we have examined through this course, rhetoric began and grew in it's original oral form with ancient rhetors around. Classical rhetors like Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, Isocrates – all delivered their arguments orally. Memorization and delivery, the last two canons, were especially necessary in this time, and accepted without question. This analysis of a subject required an in depth and practiced knowledge in order to speak intelligently on the topic. Ancient rhetors were required to research thoroughly and seek all available avenues of solution in their problems. In oral rhetoric, orators acquired skills that we today may find extremely difficult (due to the change in spatial to linear thinking). Written rhetoric brought liberty to new rhetoricians that ancient oral rhetors had no advantage of – somewhat of a written memory. Literacy brought a new meaning to rhetoric, and it has completely changed the way rhetors write and deliberate today. With the addition of written language, came the ability to write ideas down, saving them. Not only that, but the invention of the printing press in 1450 revolutionized communication and consequently rhetoric. Major changes happen with these two technologies; I am referring to writing, and then the productivity and expansion brought by the printing press as two distinct technologies, each affecting and changing rhetoric for rhetors and their audiences.

Writing as a technology allowed authors to remember their ideas without the need for constant memorization – and allowed for revisions and editing that would make organizing and arrangement an entirely new animal. Authors gained the ability to cut and paste, to rearrange and develop arrangement further than possible before – or at least much easier. Authorship also brought new changes associated with ethos, and the character represented in their writing. With writing, rhetors become invisible once the text is printed, and read at another time – other than any wide reputations they may have. The audience cannot see for themselves who is speaking, and what ethical credibility they carry, instead the author has to be sure to present this throughout their writing, and be explicit in the character they carry in order to develop the best face to win their audience. This brings up the importance of the fifth canon, delivery. Delivery in oral rhetoric was completely up to the original author. When it comes to delivery through writing, or print, the audience wields more power in the interpretation. Authors who write their arguments must pay extra attention to their style, and punctuation in their writing. New writing rhetors had the challenge of educating a reader on themselves. Sentence length and structure take on new responsibility in delivering a message to the reader – or new interpreting orator. Subtly disguised in style authors, now allowed by the new role of arrangement, would change rhetoric in their attempts to write it down. Style becomes important in written rhetoric, and although it was important before for oral rhetors, style deserves special attention from writers. When giving a speech orally, the way it is delivered and the style chosen is easy to deliver, since it is from the orator and author themselves. When writing, an author must pay special attention to the word choice used, and the style presented and ensure that others reading the work will hear the author's voice. This is important in the establishment of ethos and voice in writing.

The latter technology, the printing press, revolutionized rhetoric and its world as well through the availability and expanse of print. Not only can more people read a written piece of work, but the phenomenon of print, welcomed commerce, and changed how rhetoric was written. Elizabeth's Eisenstein's writing, “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change”, described in depth the change in print, and how the ability for people to store their knowledge (in writing) allowed for them to accumulate it over centuries and generations of people in a way that had never been equalled before. Although we have learned that oral societies relied on their strong memories and methods like storytelling to acquire and retain their knowledge, written technology and print itself let people build a database, that more than the owner could access. In this way rhetoricians and writers, did not have to investigate every topic they wished to speak about themselves, or have an intimate first hand knowledge of many topics, they could read of others' without having to know the owner of the experience. Authors could now contribute to a collective knowledge. Rhetoric would be changed in the way rhetors approach invention. Compared to oral society, literate society allows for individual research with no need for collective experience as a necessity for a knowledge base. Due to the invention of print, writing could travel farther and expand to entirely new audiences. This changed the way that rhetor's needed to approach their audience. Oral rhetors saw their audience, spoke directly to them, and lived in their commonplaces. New foreign audiences present a new challenge to writers, who must think outside the box much like invention, and image their audience and all of their possibilities. Audiences are wider with print, and one could argue more knowledgeable as well due to the invention of print. When rhetorically arguing to these new audiences, listeners value an in depth knowledge, one they cannot easily learn themselves. This makes research necessary for writers, as discussed before, since so much more information is available to everyone, audiences want unique genuine insight and information.

As I have discussed, rhetoric has undergone many changes due to the revolution of writing and print as new technologies. The development of humankind as we are rests on the transition from oral to written rhetoric, and has resulted in new meanings for the canons of rhetoric, specifically for invention, arrangement, memorization and delivery. Ancient rhetors, while relevant to rhetorical principles, dealt with a different form of rhetoric than the one we deal with today. Today rhetoricians publish to a widespread audience, one much larger than that of ancient Athens. The invention of the printing press and writing itself, transformed oral society from communities reliant on strong memories, to humankind with the ability to build knowledge, and share it for everyone to build off of – not just the original author.

Works Cited

Duffy, Shannon E. "H-Net Reviews." H-Net Reviews. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2014.

ARCS Ch 9; RT 761-772, 581-627

Arrangement and its importance with kairos. We have talked about kairos before, and its importance in the timing of when to introduce an argument, or the best way/time to reveal it. But this is also true with arrangement. Arrangement needs kairos in order to determine which parts of an argument to arrange in the right way - the right timing.
Salons, invented in a way by Madeleine de Scudery, are a way of using kairos in the real world, when meeting people in a certain time and at a salon, gave people the means of expressing themselves and 'selling' themselves to others in that kairos.
Strong rhetoric relies on the very important concept of arrangement, for even a strong argument may be arranged in a weak way and lose value to an audience. Paying attention to kairos in arrangement allows for an argument to present itself in the most powerful and impactful way possible.

ARCS CH 8, RT 748-760, 698-735

Reading about Margaret Fell was refreshing and interesting in this section. I found it interesting how women were being particularly restricted at this time period (1614-1702) but despite the challenges they faced from the oppression of men many found "courage to express themselves", particularly Margaret Fell. It makes me wonder how in a time where women were experiencing more restrictions that many women felt this ability, why wouldn't the result be the opposite, women voicing less at the risk of prosecution. Margaret's piece titled, "Women's Speaking Justified, Proved, and Allowed by the Scriptures" was interesting for two main reasons. I thought about her title, and decision to use the word "allowed". To me this is an interesting and powerful choice, defining the current state of womens' rights at the time particularly related to speaking, but I found that this word validates the notion at the time that women do not have the allowance to speak credibly or publicly. I do not agree with her decision to use this nomenclature in her title...Secondly, I found it fitting and interesting that she speaks about the right of women to speak and have opinions publicly through examples in scripture that support the notion of equality for women. In the context of her writing and the time it was published, I can see the relevance of her topic, and the credibility that the church held in the time. Now in today's age, I would strive to find a source (similar to the Bible) that everyone may be able to agree is credible, true, fact, etc. But I find that now there are less "commonplaces" such as this. I feel that it was easier for Margaret Fell to accomplish what she wanted to say about the equality of women because she found the way to relater topic to a trustworthy and universally reliable source. People didn't argue with the Bible, especially because of the union between church and state. Now in writing, a rhetor would find it much harder to justify their ideas by citing one universally  uncontested source.

Renaissance Rhetoric Intro pp. 553-580

What I liked while reading this chapter on the Renaissance rhetoric was the mention of humanism as the first intellectual movement of the Renaissance - one that I had not thought of before. People beginning to think of themselves and others as one whole connected by humanity, is endearing and powerful. Although this movement was largely in the northern Italian area, where Petrarch spent many times. Petrarch's style was inspired by Cicero, and developed after his discovery of much of Cicero's old work (letters) - it is in this inspiration that humanitias  was born and later became the humanism movement (pp. 558). This shift introduces a ore personal style to rhetoric. While reading this I related this movement as one that may have been comparable to the development of voice in writing. The distinction of writers/orators/speakers from one another. Although I am sure that scholars could be distinguished before this development of a "more personal and literary style", this movement may have brought more value to this aspect of an author's presence as a result of the humanism aspect being introduced (pp. 558).
Another section I found valuable and relevant to myself was "Italian Women Humanists", one of the first introductions of female contenders in the readings. I read, learning what I should have expected, about the effects of culture on the female scholars. Many did not continue after marriage - customary but disheartening for the development of women academics, although appropriate to the time. It is enlightening to see the treatment of women is routinely constant throughout history in sectors, not exempt from ancient rhetoricians. It leaves me questioning when women will be seen in the same light as the dominant group...leading into social inequalities and away from rhetoric, I digress.

ARCS Ch 7

There are a few parts of Chapter 7 in ARCS that I found interesting. This chapter, titled, "Pathetic Proof" gave a new definition to pathos - pathetic. I hadn't ever thought that pathos could be associated with pathetic, but now I have learned that pathetic appeal can be one that just conjures up emotion in the audience - not only loathsome or sad.
Pathos gains strength in this chapter, and Aristotle is one ancient rhetor whose opinions on emotional appeals are taught. What I found interesting was the part where prejudices against emotion are used unfairly, for instance, "if you're emotional, you're irrational (171)" and how reasons associated with steady, tranquil behavior - stifling emotions. I feel that emotional appeals are portrayed a lot this way in the everyday arguments I see, and take part in, daily. I hadn't thought before that emotional appeals could also be used powerfully for advertising - "Just do it! (171)" appealing to peoples desire to succeed. Additionally,arguments with people you are closer with, that happen at home or with the people closest to you - will make the biggest emotional impact when using pathos. This can be largely seen through the example given explaining how proximity affects the intensity of emotions that they feel - for instance how climate change may not bring a large audience to immediate feeling fear because of the fact that its effects can't be seen or felt monumentally daily (177). Later in the text Aristotle's teachings speak to how emotions are great places to target in your audience - as often emotional changes develop into differences in people's judgements individually (175)".

Boethius

Although Boethius saw himself as a philosopher, he was a source of classical learning for medieval scholars, and his work reflects the "treatise of logic" (486, RT). In this passage Boethius titled, "An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric", he begins by outlining the three species of rhetoric which are judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Subjects debated are largely of civil importance to cultures - and are shaped by the species they are categorized into.
     "when it seeks the ends of justice in a court of law, it becomes judicial; when it asks in an assembly what is useful or proper, then it is a deliberative act; and when it proclaims publicly what is good, the civil question becomes demonstrative rhetoric (489)."
This quotation explains this principle and how the type of argument and its kairos are determined by the species it's categorized into.
Boethius goes on to comment on the importance of rhetorics 5 parts (invention disposition, style, memory, delivery) and how a true rhetorician must utilize all these parts or they will be missing an important element of direction in their argument.

ARCS Ch 6

Ethos dominates the beginning of Chapter 6, and although I have heard of ethos before I found this definition to be new to me. Ethos can be described as the character assessed and determined of the speaker by their audience. How can speakers overcome this? Certainly this type of character assessment by your audience can be good if you have a good reputation, or are an expert in an issue, but what if you are speaking on a topic new to you? How can you overcome obstacles in the ethos that other people perceive of you? These are questions I found myself asking after reading about this. It shows the importance of research and knowledgeability required to be a good rhetorician - and I think that is really the most fundamental thing rhetoricians master. Someone can only become a good rhetorician by examining all the issues, and their stases - not to mention the sides of an issue as well. They ugh be open to conversation about an issue and be able to use all the information given to formulate the best outcome or truth out of an argument. None of this possible without being well versed on a topic, oand thorough in research - with this as a rhetoricians greatest strength they can be spared in less skilled areas like presentation or reputation, because real knowledge about a topic come across confident and intelligent.

ARCS Ch4

Chapter 5 of this text focused on logical appeals. Logical appeals are defined in four ways according to Aristotle; scientific demonstration, dialect, rhetoric, and false or contentious reasoning. Other than other characteristics about logical appeals and the types, one thing that interested me most was the definitions of 'premise'. I have found that premises seem to derail arguments the most in my daily life. I can recall many times where I say something in an argument and my audience disagrees with my initial claim or assumption - I find this to be one of the most difficult parts about meeting with opposing parties. Finding a common claim to agree on seems to be the key to argument resolution. I also found it interesting how powerful comparing two alike situations can be in persuading audiences in an argument. These types of logical appeals seem to appeals to the ethos as well - applying your experiences to others can be a convincing way of relating personal experiences and persuading other people through this type of emotional connection. Analogies like hypothetical comparisons is one way Aristotle suggests to logically appeal (133).

ARCS Ch 4, Aristotle

While reading, I found the distinction between commonplaces and topics to be important and worth noting. Commonplaces represent the common cultural belief of the social construction available; topics represent the more traditional definition that is the point or category at which people are speaking about. Three common topics discussed by Aristotle were listed as; 1. Whether a thing has or hasn't occurred? Whether a thing will or will not occur? 2. Whether a thing is greater or smaller than another thing? 3. What is (and is not) possible?
These questions are interesting and are very helpful in directing your rhetorical analysis. It is obviously important to discover the stases at which your topic is held, and I feel that reading this - after last chapter which was all about questions - comes as a good follow up. Aristotle is similar to the type of rhetor that I feel I am in the fact that he uses and prefers logical proofs. I find these proofs to be very persuasive when arguing a topic. Finding the 'topic' of an argument is similar in many ways to the point of stases discussed in my last post. This is one thing I found confusing, how are these two things different? Common topics include those that many issues may disagree over, such as possible vs impossible, greater degree vs lesser degree, and past vs future. These are all common points in many current arguments where people are arguing about these points of stases.
Commonplaces have a way of inherently becoming ideologies in a culture (96). The point that many different members of a community seem to agree on a commonplace makes it an ideology in definition. Ideologies become a part of the culture, and although they may change they are enveloped in general by the culture that started them. From then on, the apparent ideologies are then influencing future ideas, speeches, and new ideologies by the vey fact that an ideology is seemingly engraved then into the culture. By becoming part of the commonly accepted culture it becomes an influencing factor in developing cultural norms and commonplaces.

ARCS Ch3 & Aristotle Imitato discussion

While preparing for this reading post, I thought I would also include some of the information on the essay and ancient rhetor I chose for the Imitatos. I have chosen one essay by Aristotle, that is a part of his writing taken from the piece, "Rhetoric". I chose this rhetor because earlier in the text, I remember reading that he is one rhetor who especially favors the persuasive law of pathos - logic or reason. This appealed particularly to myself because I feel that I value logic and evidence when persuading others in my writing. In his essay he pay special attention to the rhetorical differences between the socially constructed roles of different people such as a judge and lawmaker. He also explains that when using rhetoric to strengthen persuasive arguments that anyone can be involved, and is unbeknownst to them in their daily life. People are often caught defending their actions or maintaining their views among regular conversations- making them rhetors of everyday life (179, RT). Aristotle makes note that it is always easier to believe in and 'back-up' beliefs that we already believe in or favor, which can be used to a rhetor's advantage.
While reading through the 3rd chapter of our ARCS readings, I was pleasantly surprised at the chapter's main focus - questions. Questions are the key to knowledge and without them a true rhetor would be without his infantry. Throughout the text I learned that there are four main types of the most important questions to ask when trying to come to stases. These four questions narrow down the stases of an argument. At which point do both sides disagree? Do they disagree on the conjecture, definition, quality, or policy? For example, some lawmakers are disputing whether GMO modified foods should be labeled in grocery stores for consumers to see. Do GMO labels exist? They can, yes. What kind of thing is labeling a GMO? It can be agreed that a GMO is a genetically-modified food, and by labeling them in stores it would become more parent to customers which foods are affected this way. The point of contention comes with the third question - Is it right or wrong (to label these GMOs in stores)? Here is where the two sides disagree, and bring voters in to decide - here by asking the four (but only needing  to ask up to the third) questions we have arrived at the stases of the argument, and form here a rhetor can gain more knowledge on the subject and the different angles to argue at this stases. It is most important for a rhetorician to ask questions and investigate arguments!

ARCS Ch.2; RT Intro to Part I, Gorgias, and Dissoi Logoi

While reading Chapter 2 of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students one of the first things I learned and made note of were the elements of a rhetorical situation which according to the text includes and issuer of discussion, and audience (and their relationship to the issue), a rhetor's reputation and a time and place. These elements comprise a multitude of different possible rhetorical situations, which leads to the topic of the "right rhetorical moment" (ARCS, 37-38). Kairos is defined as a moment in time at which you can make the most advantage of that situation - as that certain moment (ARCS, 38). While creating an argument there are many things to consider, in the power dynamics of an issue it is important to consider which arguments are being made by which people (arguments already established), and whether they receive more or less attention (ARCS, 41).
Another thing I found interesting was learning more about some of the individual ancient rhetors actual thoughts were. The Sophist Movement viewed that absolute knowledge was now available to humans. Plato rejected this, but the Sophists ability to see all sides of an argument aimed promote diversity and tolerance in society. Isocrates saw himself primarily as a teacher and had three main elements of success which were "natural talents, practice in varied situations, and instruction in general principles" (RT, 26). Reading further into the Rhetorical Tradition, I read one section that was particularly interesting to me. This section named Aspasia and Opportunities for Women informed about ancient times and the roles of women. They were far and few - and complimented as "not totally oppressed". Texts from any women at the time have not survived and are not even sure to exist, but it wasn't long before ancient Greek women could attend schools or hold public office (in wealthier families) (RT, 27).
Later, reading about Plato's struggle between real and false rhetoric at first confused me but ended up teaching me a lot. He criticizes false rhetoric for relying on "kairos", he says that only "determine[s] provisional truth or probable knowledge"(RT, 28). Aristotle was less concerned with the struggle between 'false' and 'true' knowledge, instead he defined three categories for rhetoric, as well as established that he personally felt the appeal to reason was the most important, and some even said he could appear to "prefer to conduct persuasion by reason alone" (RT, 31). I feel I most identify so far with how Aristotle approaches rhetoric. Reasoning, and appealing to logical appeals are strong ways to make a solid argument. It it difficult to negate logical reasoning, or facts backed up through "scientific demonstration" (RT, 31). This I found particularly interesting in that I feel that I value logical appeals when arguing a side too.

ARCS Ch. 1; RT General intro.

The subject of rhetoric became much clearer to me after reading from "Ancient Rhetorics of Contemporary Students" by Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee. In more ancient times rhetoric was used as a way of evaluating whichever arguments were the most "accurate, useful, or valuable" (2). Rhetoric is begin able to look at, analyze and gather all the parts of an argument and compare each opposing view for the best outcome. While reading I found it interesting when comparisons and differences were made between rhetoric today and back in ancient times. Opinions were valued in communities back then, and "facts" and "testimonies" are valued much higher today in a common argument. Discrepancies are the whole and only reason rhetoric exists. Inventing new arguments and analyzing which angles at which to approach an argument is the main function of rhetorical analysis. I now understand much more than I did before this reading about the true purpose of rhetoric and the ways it can be applied. I appreciate the text which paints argument as friendly and necessary for argumentative evaluation instead of just a social taboo. I learned that rhetoric requires the exploration of many avenues before any are ready to be heard as finished arguments.

While reading from "The Rhetorical Tradition" by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, I found one statement particularly interesting when read, "Speeches required arguments that would convince and stories that would move" (2). I found this interesting because it highlights the point that rhetoricians seek to convince and persuade with rhetorical strategies meticulously planned and worked on, but also that a good rhetorician requires a type of dramatic charisma that convinces audiences in a human and touching argument when spoken aloud. This quote points out that rhetoricians need more than a flawless argument when reciting a speech, they need to perform it. I learned from this historical overview of rhetoric 5 steps for preparing a persuasive speech which I hop dot find useful in preparing our own essays soon. I was pleased to read that Aristotle viewed logos - logic, as the most widely valuable of the three appeals (logos, ethos, pathos). I view logical arguments as the most valuable and powerful in convincing an audience in my personal opinion and was interested to see more about how these arguments are applied to persuasive speech. One other particular part I found interesting is in the end of the General Introduction where Virginia Woolf notes that, "a sister to Shakespeare…has not yet been published" (14). This observation draws attention to the facts that modern language is giving opportunities to women (and others as well of course) that they hadn't been able to achieve before more modern times.