Raven V. Writing Desk

I’d like to begin with a quote from Mr. Burbules, “Every link excludes as well as includes associate points; every path leads away from other avenues as it opens one passage; every trope conceals as it reveals” (Burbules 119-20).  This quote reads as both thesis and conclusion; the quote is also hard to argue against.  So I won’t.

In regards to how links reveal, I thought the idea of how links in a way create the other page, that links have agency in determining the existence was a moment akin to looking at the stars and someone saying, “Look at the stars,” and someone else responding, “They’re looking back at us” — ‘they’ being aliens.  OK.  What Burbules is getting at is that links are gatekeepers that “control access to information”.  Therefore links reveal outside information (but also conceal, oh double-edged link sword).

In this revealing of outside information, or other sites, links can also reveal agenda or bias.  Revealing of this sort lifts the veil of perhaps an otherwise subtle subjectivity of the web author to full blown opinion.  Links can, in other words, reveal an author’s lack of objectivity on a subject — say linking satanism with rock music, commonplace in the 80′s — and thus stimy attempts at achieving credibility.  On the other hand, that might be right up the alley of the hypothetical web author’s intended audience.  This kind of “cause-and-effect” linkage can be very effective, especially when employing a argument heavy on the pathos — what parent wouldn’t be afraid of his or her child being seduced by Satan (Burbules 115)?

Of course, the same sort of argument is concealing and therefore the link as well.  Rock music can also be used in a Church environment — the debate over which rock music is worse that of Christian or Satanic shall be for another day — so focusing on the negative seems counterproductive.  Scare tactics are effective though. 

Another aspect of the web and links that are effective in concealment is hyperbole.  Burbules seems to mean that through hyperbole, the web and links conceal or diminish what is lacking within the network.  The web or links for that matter are hyperbolic in that both claim to be exhaustive (the list of all books, all movies available etc.), but at what point does saying you are something make it so?  I think most people at one point or another have said, “You can find everything on the Internet.”  The concealing quality of hyperbole is very thorough.

Although this is somewhat off topic, I found catechresis — quite the crossword puzzle word if there was one — quite interesting.  This idea spoke to the power of links and I guess could be a form of revealing in that perhaps an otherwise unrelated pair of objects could be related . . . the link between ravens and writing desks is not that “far-fetched” though Lewis Carroll joked about it 100+ years ago (Burbules 116).

So anything can be linked and the act of linking is both revealing and concealing.  One can link to establish credibility; one can link to persuade or transform; one can link to appear to know everything, but watch out, we’re getting more savvy with more and more web authors out there.  I’ll give the last word to Burbules though, “ironically, the tool we have created to serve us actually shapes us” (Burbules 119).

Works Cited

Burbules, Nicholas C. “Rhetorics of the Web: hyperreading and critical literacy.” Page to Screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. Ed. Ilana Snyder. London: Routledge, 1997. Print.

Aspects of Power–From Alphabetic Literacy to Print

The image of a colossus astride the continuum of human history is an apt image to begin an essay on power.  This metaphorical behemoth has one foot in the past and one in the future, possessing the ability to negotiate a space, to designate an area that is produced by the oscillation between those two points.  The given name is the present.  From this vantage point one can argue that the technologies of the alphabet, paper and printing are amongst the most important and influential in human history – ask the colossus.  This essay will examine the intersection of power in its many guises and the aforementioned technologies.

When the Greek alphabet (if ever there was a colossus) – begat by the Phoenicians begat by Semitic slaves begat by Egyptian hieroglyphics – came on the scene, the prevailing technology was primary orality.  Walter Ong, the late Professor of humanities at Saint Louis University, argues for the innate power of orality, however, alphabetic technology was able to usurp it.  The method of attack was two-fold to achieve what Ong says as quoted by Thomas Bertonneau, who teaches English Literature at SUNY, to separate “the knower from the known” (qtd. in Bertonneau 115).  First, the alphabet provided external storage of information, like my little gold book, abolishing “the need for memorization” and thus increased efficiency by removing the limiting nature of memorization (Havelock 40).  And second, through symbols and signs, humanity was able to think more abstractly.  This potent one-two punch makes possible for humans the advancement beyond mnemonics – though not without its own power – to the more intrinsic power of alphabetic technology that of novel thought.  Havelock explains, “the advancement of knowledge . . . depends upon the human ability to think about something unexpected—a “new idea” (Havelock 40).  The power of being able to write that novel thought down is illuminated when writing in my little gold book. Moreover, the true power of alphabetic technology becomes clear, because with novel thought, comes a recursive quality in thinking, one can build directly upon preceding ideas as a form of endless perpetuation of thought.  Technology relies heavily on this recursiveness and may be its prime mover.

As mentioned above, Ong argues for the power of orality, how sound unifies and has impact.  It is hard to discount the power of orality, its primal quality. Humans are hardwired for orality.  Moreover, Ong would argue that orality is the springboard from which alphabetic technology bounded and therefore subsequent technologies.  To push further, orality is still present and resonates.  When one hears a speaker, he or she employs mnemonics both to remember the speech and to impact the audience.  What Ong calls “secondary orality”, music, radio etc., “generates a sense for groups immeasurably larger than those of primary oral culture” (Ong 54).  Clearly illustrates how orality is a potent force in human culture.

No fool, Ong acknowledges the power of print, the progeny of alphabetic technology stating, “only after print . . . would human beings, when they thought about the cosmos or universe or “world”, think primarily of something . . . ready to be explored” (Ong 54).  Print, therefore, widened humanity’s worldview and cosmology not only readying for exploration, but also allowing us to begin to explore.

One cannot easily deny the influence of orality on communication technology, just like one cannot deny the influence of the Greek alphabet.  Equally undeniable is the influence of the Chinese, the colossus of paper and print technology for paper, as Thomas F. Carter professor of Chinese at Columbia University put it, “is the most certain and most complete of China’s inventions” (Carter 67).  Influence is synonymous with power; without China it is difficult to imagine if one could even discuss paper as it is now understood, the idea of printing or even write in the same manner.  The influence over the means of print is absolute, from the development of rag paper, to paper proper, to the rudiments of block printing (paper rubbed on stone), to the more full-blown block printing, and all of this some five hundred years before Gutenberg.  It is laughable to think that paper was invented around 105 A.D. in China, but rag paper was thought to be “a German or Italian invention of the fifteenth century” (Carter 69).  One can see clearly the power or influence China held over printing technology when another date is considered.  Carter says that the T’ang dynasty’s “reduplication of sacred books and texts . . . reached its climax in block printing some time before the end of the ‘golden age’” or sometime before 906 A.D. (Carter 70).  Also visible is the power of materials to change ideas and how ideas change materials, another example of how the power of these technologies are borne of a recursive nature, the oscillation between looking forward and back to advance.  To paraphrase Carter, information became encumbered by the technology present that of bamboo, wood and silk, a “new writing material was needed” (Carter 68).  This new material of course was paper, arguably part of the impetus for block printing, therefore, ideas begat new materials and materials begat new ideas.  China, more than any other civilization, has impacted the technology of paper and print.  These technologies are “a force in the advancement of civilization” both locally for China and globally (Carter 71).

Perhaps the only institution to rival China in terms of power or influence is the Church – the Church in this sense being the Catholic Church, the predominant colossus in Europe after the fall of Rome.  If influence is synonymous with power then the cliché knowledge is power only grows in strength.  The Church maintained the knowledge that survived into the Dark Ages—mainly the Bible.  James Burke and Robert Ornstein, both authors speak of the Church’s influence as a “magic power . . . able to persuade people” (Burke & Ornstein 56).  So, considering the verb choice of to maintain knowledge with its connotation of benevolence, Burke and Ornstein would argue to replace it with to control for the Church controlled both knowledge and its dissemination.  Indeed, there was nothing to “compete with the educational system controlled by the Church” (Burke & Ornstein 57).  The Church through the literacy of its clergy had been “inserted . . . into every aspect of secular life” so pervasive was its power.  Burke and Ornstein also make sure to point out that control existed in both the “highly centralized . . . Islamic society” and the Mandarins who thought, “the only purpose of education was to prepare for service to the state” (Burke & Ornstein 58).  It is important to note that through these two civilizations, the Church’s leadership was presented with “unprecedented power . . . thanks to the Christian belief that they had a God-given right to subjugate the world” (Burke & Ornstein 59).  Thus was delivered a justification for subjugation and further control.

Pre-print communication was dominated by “an extensive network . . . established and controlled by the Catholic Church” to keep information free flowing, at least for the select few (Thompson 96).  Only through the filter of the Church hierarchy and the pulpit did information reach the largely illiterate masses.  At this time the Church was the source for both earthly and divine concerns or as James Burke put it, “the news of the world, both ecclesiastical and civil, came from the pulpit” (Burke 75).  Talk about control, most people being illiterate and untrusting of texts – not surprising in world where “documents were often forged” – relied on the trust vested in the Church.  In a world where opinion was fact and people hardly ever travelled beyond their immediate surroundings, the Church monopolized power of information.

Unsurprisingly, in a world dominated by a religious colossus, the Church, the first book printed by Gutenberg was the Bible.  The implication though is that the most valued if not most important text of the time came closer than ever before to the populace, thus furthering the gradual process of bringing power of literacy, of information to the people.  But interestingly, Gutenberg and others like him mimicked the preceding and at the time still predominate technology, that of the scribe.  Lewis Mumford, a respected humanist scholar, states, “early type designers and printers . . . were still under the spell of the old manuscripts” (Mumford 76).  More credit should be given; the scribal institution had, of course, built up an amount of credibility.  To establish credibility, like that of the scribe, what better way than to piggyback off the existing and credible technology or ideology. However, it goes further than that: by mimicking the handiwork of the scribes not only does the printer build of off the pre-existing, but there is an acknowledgement of the talismanic power of the established technology, much like how e-books mirror the technology of the bound, tactile book.  Through mimicry one can see the nod to the power of prevailing technologies, the oscillation of looking back to move forward.

Another aspect of power present is clearly stated by Mumford, “printing broke the class monopoly of the written word, and it provided the common man with a means of gaining access to the culture of the world” (Mumford 77).  That sounds dangerous, especially considering the colossal storm of the Reformation brewing.  A potent driving force of the Reformation was printing the Bible in the vernacular, the local language.  Harvey J. Graff, a professor of history and humanities, goes so far as to call “publishing in the vernacular . . . a major preoccupation” of the Protestant Reformation (Graff 88).  This local language publication increased literacy and had an almost counter-intuitive result: an increased worldview.  Because the Reformation emphasized publishing in the vernacular, the control of information moved away from the Church – though the information was “narrowly religious and theological” – putting it in the hands of the people.  And as has been established, knowledge is power.  To further illustrate Graff suggests, “printed texts could standardize church practices . . . or could reveal . . . the gap between official doctrine and clerical practice” (Graff 89).  Not surprising the end result was a split from the Catholic Church.

This shift in the dissemination of information continued away from the church. To paraphrase John B. Thompson, the author of several works on social theory, after the Church’s network of communication came those established by “political authorities” and then by commercial entities (Thompson 96).  Information began to spread more easily through the establishment of “regular postal services, which became increasingly available for general use” and when printing was applied “to the production and dissemination of news” (Thompson 96).  People, who had perhaps never traveled forty miles from their home, nonetheless were able to experience broadened horizons simply having increased information delivery along trade routes.  One could argue that news traveling along trade routes feels more organic than gathering at the village church and receiving the news; this sort of information delivery system smacks of a primarily oral culture, one dominated by the Church’s power.

Print continued to transform the landscape, shepherding in the genesis of the information age or the precursor thereof.  The combination of the control of information being wrested from the Church along with the printing press allowed for the rise of papers and periodicals, a further democratization of information.

Of course, attempts by those in power to control print continued.  People fled to the New World in response, but others stayed to fight on. Once freedom is tasted, rarely does on go freely back into the cage.  In England policies like the Stamp Act were enacted as a stopgap “to exercise some control over the proliferation of newspapers” (Thompson 99).  The battle for the status quo, in this case, was an uphill battle – imagine trying to force the genie that is the Internet back in the bottle, good luck.  Thompson’s statement, “The Stamp Acts were bitterly opposed and became a rallying point in the struggle for freedom of the press” leads one to the inevitability of the battle to remain in control, to have the power over the source (Thompson 99).  The democratization of information, an idea with its roots firmly in the Greek tradition, marches on.

Without the democratization of information even conceiving of making my own book would be foreign, even alien.  Through the process of crafting the book – I cut pages out of the back of an existing book to add a twist of jest – the power of the technologies came to life.  In this little gold book, I can write whatever I choose (the power over content) and build upon each one of those minor, yet novel thoughts by referring back to my previously transcribed information.  Paper is taken for granted now to the point where the staggering achievement is diminished, even ignored and perhaps even more so is the alphabetic technology because they are such a part of human culture. But what about printing, so democratized that most people with a computer have a printer – printing has become a given, not thought about unless the computer doesn’t communicate with printer and we have to wait longer than a moment.  Making my own book then, broadened my perspective on the technologies, allowing me to see their power in a myriad ways.

So let us return to the colossus astride human civilization, one foot in the past, one in the future.  Our metaphor sees how recent these communication technologies of the alphabet, of paper and of printing have entered from somewhere off stage.  It knows the power of orality and knows that it has been usurped, but not abandoned.  It knows that the battle, the human battle is always over the most seductive, most desirable things in creation: power.  And it knows, perhaps with a brain to match its brawn that no matter what the technology, there will those who want to control it, influence it, change it, advance it and have power of it.  The Greeks could have come up with a potent yet preposterous communication technology that took off in combination with a ridiculous means of dissemination provided by the Chinese and this hypothetical would have been wrangled, controlled, harnessed, harassed and used by authority to wield power and maintain it only to be lusted after by those who were exposed to it, the spread of which and adoption of becoming an inevitably like the end of this sentence.

Works Cited

Bertonneau, Thomas F. “Orality, Literacy, and the Tradition.” Modern Age. Spring 2003. 113 – 122. mimsi.org. Web.

Burke, James. “Communication in the Middle Ages.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 3^rd Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer.  New York: Allyn & Bacon, 1998. 74 – 82. Print.

Burke, James and Robert Ornstein. “Communication and Faith in the Middle Ages.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 56 – 62. Print.

Carter, Thomas F. “Paper and Block Printing—From China to Europe.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 67 – 72. Print.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth. “Aspects of the Printing Revolution.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 78 – 86. Print.

Graff, Harvey J. “Early Modern Literacies.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 86 – 95. Print.

Havelock, Eric. “The Greek Legacy.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 38 – 43. Print.

Mumford, Lewis. “The Invention of Printing.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 74 – 77. Print.

Ong, Walter. “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 49 – 55. Print.

Thompson, John B. “The Trade in the News.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society 6^th Edition. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2011. 95 – 100. Print.

Tres Text-y

My addition to the history of writing technologies is the missing chapter on texting, titled Text-novation?, an exploration into how texting has changed how people read and write.  Before I proceed I want to admit something: I do not text and I believe that statement covers both transmission and reception.  I have opted out so my opinion is most certainly biased, but I will attempt to be as objective as possible.

I have heard many arguments in favor of texting: everybody’s doing it, convenience and also how it streamlines communication.  Granted many, many people are texting, but that is no reason to do anything — we’ve all heard the parental logic: if you’re friends jumped off a bridge would you too? — however, this form of reading and writing is nearly omnipresent.  One of the major effects on writing is the near total lack of punctuation or capital letters.  Admittedly, I have read a few texts, but mostly I hear about this brand of complaint from older generations speaking about the younger.  The question arises, are we so used to having computer programs capitalize and spell for us that in a texting format all that goes out the window? Or, is this a result of the streamlining of communication?  Arguably both answers to both questions are yes.

In terms of convenience, because many people participate in texting, the technology is convenient.  On top of that phones or texting devices are highly portable; a person is not required to be anyone one place to write — at a computer desk — but can be at work, at school, driving, ignoring everything and everyone around them.  Something like a traditional journal is just as portable as a text equipped device; however, the big difference is transmission or publishing which is instantaneous.  Whereas a printing press takes quite some time, one could send a text or post a comment and immediately ding a response.  Your embarrassing missive is sent around the world with all your spelling mistakes, grammar errors etc.

Our theoretical message is stripped down and hurtling through time and space.  This streamlining of the language seemingly matches the rate at which the text flows, language mirrored in technological speed.  If the typewriter and printing press are a dirt road, then texting — creation, transmission and reception — is the German Autobahn or the Japanese Bullet Train or whatever analogous fast, fast transportation method.  Because there is a receiving end of the text transmission, people are reading also reading all over the place and equally ignoring arguably more important activities and people.  Of course, any time a person is reading or writing said person is removed from the action unless you are a proponent of Gonzo Journalism, but even Thompson said he was never fully able to participate.

Another argument for texting is that of instantaneous publishing.  When reading Kalmbach I couldn’t help but notice how long it took for information or copies thereof to be exchanged.  I’m not sure how text messaging was initially conceived of, but Kalmbach writes that “the typewriter had been conceived as a publishing device, an alternative to handwriting for everyday publishers”, which at the time was a definite need (Kalmbach 225).  The argument for the necessity for texting is not something I want to go into here, but it certainly meets the demand for instant publishing that matches an ever increasing speed of information sharing. 

That being said, with texting there seems to be an addictive quality.  We’ve all seen people compulsively checking for messages or writing messages.  My perception of the compulsion is a desire to be omnipresent or maybe just to not be where one is or not to miss out.  The expectation I guess is to be constantly stimulated, and because most of our most powerful stimulation comes from screens we are compelled to read and write constantly.  Humans are always searching for the next thing.  Arguably texting is a digressive technology when compared with cellphone and speech technology — the implications therein are better left for another time.

Works Cited

Kalmbach, James R.. “Publishing Before Computers.” Professional Writing and Rhetoric. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman Publishers, 2002. Print.

The Importance of Being Important

capital letters are important because they add well importance and like punctuation capital letters can add emphasis directing the reader to what is the noteworthy aspects of a sentence the proper nouns  if brad pitt isnt capitalized how is one to determine how important he is the determination would be impossible because the lower case makes him look puny and unimportant  what am i talking about  what im getting at begins with what martin solomon says “most punctuation marks are composed to be seen but not heard. These . . . devices are quite important however for they are the meter that determines the measure within the silent voice of typography” (Solomon 28).  capital letters start the sentence and more often than not start the title see above they direct the eye from end punctuation to the next thought announcing it much like end punctuation denotes the curtain call

im not sure what punctuation needs to exist for this blog i felt i needed the parentheses quotation marks and period to properly cite and give credit out of respect to the author but obviously in terms of rhythm or readability punctuation is key also lack of punctuation is making this writing difficult i feel like what my 9 year nephew must feel like when hes texting probably not ultimately i think i could do without quotes one can always preface a quote by writing so and so said this and that but i feel periods or end punctuation of some sort is most necessary a reader has to know when a thought ends to have a moment to reflect the feeling of endless unrelenting text thought is unnerving

have i apologized yet for this if not sorry

new punctuation marks arent there enough if i had to add one to english im not sure if this is permissible i would borrow from spanish to incorporate the upside down exclamation point and the upside down question mark to begin an exclamatory or inquisitive sentence much like how the capital letter heralds the beginning of the new thought the initial punctuation directs the reader either silently or out loud how to read the following sentence

i need all the help i can get and i promise the next post will be punctuated to the best of my abilities dear reader?

Works Cited

Solomon, Mark. “The Power of Punctuation.” Design Issues. VI.2 (1990): 28-32. Print.

Affect Transfer

In terms of affect transfer, a car with women is classic — especially tightly clad women.  The car and the women are certainly “unrelated objects” and one can easily imagine the “emotional response”, something akin to: attractive women are drawn to this car, if I possess the car it becomes an extension of me, therefore the attractive women will be drawn to me like some many moths to a flame (Blair 37).  Of course this kind of thought process is neither expected nor encouraged.  Rather, as Blair explains, the desire is to influence “without any conscious processing” on the part of the consumer (Blair 37).  I think that affect transfer is especially successful because it enables advertisers to get from persuasion to transformation, from consciously thinking or analyzing to unconscious action or reaction.  In essence affect transfer is a very clever manipulation.

WORKS CITED

Blair, J. Anthony. “The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments.” Defining Visual Rhetorics. Eds. Charles Hill and Marguerite Helmers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.



Let’s Get Embarassing, Let’s Get Dangerous!

THE EMBARASSING

Moving sucks.  Moving in winter is worse.  Moving when you know a storm is coming, well, that’s just stupid.  Driving to Spokane was fun.  My wife and I had somehow recruited three friends to accompany us, suckers.  We piled in the truck and drove to rendezvous with U-haul.  Secretly I hoped one friend would drive the moving truck because 1) I didn’t want to and 2) he was once a mover himself.  I will defer to talent and skill whenever possible.

After a quick glance at our street, 4-6 inches of compact snow and ice, my stomach began to churn and bubble.  I hoped it was just the Zipp’s we had in Ritzville.  We dropped the girl’s off and my brother-in-law and they set to the task of boxing up the contents of one two bedroom apartment.

Reassuring each other down the South Hill to 3rd, we shortly arrived at U-haul.  The guy at the counter was rather concerned with his rapidly approaching lunch, yelling more than once over his shoulder to an unseen co-worker in the office.  He was much less concerned with and even dismissive when I asked him whether or not the truck handled the snow well. 

“Any problems today? With the snow?”

“Nope. I’m leaving to lunch after this!“, he answered me then hollered to the co-worker.

We shrugged and I grabbed the keys, drove a little wild out onto 3rd and back around to get a running start at Monroe to head up the South Hill.  Monroe was negotiated no problem; however, turning onto 9th the tires of the U-haul simply spun. “@!&%$,” I said to myself, fists pounding on the wheel.  My friend and I discussed the options and decided to go further up and come down.  Gravity would be on our side.

Well, gravity may have been on our side, but the snow wasn’t.  Deep and fluffy the snow swallowed up the U-haul tires causing them to spin and burn, the truck moving more laterally than forward.  We finally made our way out.  I called U-haul, “Do you offer chains?”

“We don’t have chains.  We also don’t recommend you drive our vehicles in adverse weather conditions.”

“The guy at the store said it was no problem.”

“Is there anything else I can do for you sir?”

“So you’re telling me I’m on my own . . . &%$#@#$!”

Some more driving, some more cussing, but we finally managed to get the truck within a block of the apartment.  Just down the ice slick 40 degree hill.  The truck was illegally parked to boot.  Arriving back at the apartment, all the boxes were packed: progress at last!  With a bit of momentum and night quickly descending us three guys decided to move the two couches, get them out of the way.  The smaller truck was loaded — we decided to truck down swing around — with furniture and smiles. 

Not for long though, we soon realized, laughing in disbelief at the brass padlock.  U-haul had forgotten to take the lock off.  A quick search of the cab delivered no miracle.  Watching the couches moisten to the verge of wetness, we three decided to drive back to the apartment.  I told my wife it was her turn to call U-haul.  She was fuming amongst the cardboard skyscrapers, a female caucasian Godzilla.  I remember hearing, “@$#%@$#%@ . . . you talk to them.”  We returned the U-haul then and there.  Not returning the gas to the original level, a minor victory.

The next weekend we returned with two other helpers.  Since our stuff was boxed the move went quick.  It was still a bit icy, but more or less the conditions were good.  A seventeen foot truck packed in less than two hours.  My wife decided to do some final clean up, my cousin and his wife departed and I hopped in the cab of the U-haul beaming.  I backed up the hill, the giant blind spot of the U-haul body behind me and pointed the truck down the hill.  I nearly had a panic attack when the truck slid slowly toward a snow bank and short rock retaining wall.  The truck would not back up.  Panic bubbled.  Fists pounded.  My wife and I after an hour, only one blocked in neighbor, some “borrowed” ice melt, a couple buckets of water, several passersby offering no help (“Been there man”), we managed to free the truck.

THE DANGER

When amplifying through simplification one runs the risk of being offensive.  Being offensive, of course, is not the worst crime in the world.  However, if one is simplifying only stereotypical aspects of a person this kind of amplification can become not only offensive, but hateful; not only de-humanizing, but dangerous.  The world has witnessed recently deaths due to this amplification (the Danish cartoon controversy).  Overreaction, most certainly, but nonetheless lines can easily be crossed when dealing with race, religion or nationality.

Foss, Foss & Trapp on Rhetoric

I first remember hearing the word rhetoric in a song, a song I sung in a children’s singing group – not a boy band by any means since there were girl members as well as boys.  The song called “Love in Any Language” mentions how ” . . . the rhetoric of governments may keep us worlds apart, but there’s no misinterpreting the language of the heart” (Patti).  Drum roll and cymbol crash took us to the chorus where I was not only required to sing, but to sign the chorus as well much like the chimps and gorillas mentioned on the second page of the essay.

My understanding of the word was unfortunately shaped by this song and seemingly a lot of other people have been swayed by its influence.  Foss, Foss & Trapp mention as much in the first sentence when saying rhetoric is usually construed to be “pejorative” (Foss, Foss and Trapp 1).  Of course the authors did not stop there and in what I’d like to think was quite some battle — three authors after all — they came to a definition.  For the authors “rhetoric is the human use of symbols to communicate”(Foss, Foss, and Trapp 1).  This definition, though containing the word human, feels robotic.

Later on Foss, Foss & Trapp shift from the robotic definition to a more human one when they refer to people “creating their realities through symbols”(Foss, Foss and Trapp 2).  My take is that humans, being endlessly curious, are constantly searching for a way to better describe both the internal and external environments they inhabit.  And if that isn’t bad enough, humans then are possessed by a compulsion to express themselves to others with varying results.

We as humans are compelled to communicate, to share experience and some like Descartes appreciate a person who thought first, talked second since he ” . . . rejected truths established in discourse, relegating language to the role of communicating the truth once it was discovered”(Foss, Foss, and Trapp 10).  Others like the Elocutionists were more concerned with voice and gesture and the effects of delivery on the various faculties of the mind (Foss, Foss and Trapp 12).  While the major concern of the Belles Lettres movement and perhaps its raison d’etre was aesthetic appreciation.

Rhetoric is essentially the system by which we communicate, the means by which ideas are transferred.  A recent addition of rhetoric in my life would be the language in the syllabi I’ve received the past two days.  I think body language can also be a form of rhetoric: my wife rolling her eyes after some comment of mine.  Also, looking at the bathroom signs today there are layers of symbols being used to communicate.  If one can read, he or she can simply see the door with the corresponding sex written; if one can’t read, but can see there are almost always pictorial representations; finally, Braille stands as the final protective layer to help avoid the embarrassment of stepping into the wrong bathroom. 

WORKS CITED

Foss, Karen, Sonja Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetorics. 3rd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2001. Print.

_Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary_. Encyclopedia Brittanica. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric>.

Patti, Sandi. “Love in Any Language.” _Morning Like This_. Word Records, 1986.

“WordNet Search – 3.0.” WordNet.  Princeton University, n.d. Web. 11 Jan. 2011. <wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>.



Definitions of RHETORIC

1

: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

merriam-webster.com

1 : using language effectively to please or persuade 2 : grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation; “the grandiosity of his prose”; “an excessive ornateness of language” 3 : palaver: loud and confused and empty talk; “mere rhetoric”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn