Lucky For You, This Is Not A Clay Tablet

Message:"I teach guitar. call..."

Quote:"perception is reality."

Lately I found myself saying “I wish my computer was waterproof.” It would make sense for someone who wants to do homework by the pool and not have to be close to a jack on the wall at all times; where one can sit by the waters edge, bask under the sun, and still get work done. The limitations of technology can span in any directions when it comes to holding us back from some comfort of other. And in these frustrations of confinement - at least for me being confined to my computer, inside, instead of out by the pool where I used to read my books , is frustrating - I often forget, and have taken for granted many of the things we are able to do with computers.

I know, I know. I sound like a spoiled brat complaining about how my computer can limit my range of enjoyment. Imagine my reaction to trying to communicate through clay. It was sticky, dirty, and impossibly hard to relay any effective message. I was back in elementary school, trying to make a beautiful piece of art, and of course the result is a immature concoction of sorts. I couldn’t get rid of my finger prints, the clay would stick to the desk, and when I would try to turn it over and smooth it out it would break apart. Designing on mush is hard enough, but having the lack of imagination or vision for it was a whole other lesson on my part. 

A clay tablet as a medium for a rhetorical message just plain sucks! How did those guys do it? I can literally see the world with the tip of my finger, right now, on my phone; the clay tablet guys would gush at the sight of their ruins on a hand held electronic device. Or maybe not; they would probably think our mode of communication is trivial and limits our own imagination(?). 

It is true that “the medium is the message,” and my experience with the clay tablet proved my message would not have made sense to a 5 year old, no matter how important. If the fate of the world depended on my message, and all I had was a clay tablet to work on, I’d have to say sorry to the billions of people who’s life would be lost because I couldn’t write on a freaking clay tablet. 

I do see how, through changes in technology and the advances of mediums in which we communicate with, that the medium can not only change a message, but it has changed how we view rhetoric as a whole. I am amazed at how rhetoric could have been developed in such a primitive (when it comes to writing on clay tablets that is) time of written communication. The medium then was more the mind, and the advancement of rhetoric in that time is amazing considering their limitations for mediums to work with. I see how the affect of the medium has changed the ability to relay a message throughout history, and with each advance in medium technology, we enter a new realm of rhetoric.

Love Story for Rhetoric

I am getting married in less than three weeks. This is probably one of the biggest things I will ever do in my life. At a personal level, the rhetorical implications in getting married are varied and complex: this implies partnership, sharing a life, and an overall message that implies we (husband and wife) belong to each other and no one is allowed to impose on that bond. 

On a grander scale, marriage is a cultural symbol, old in history. It’s been credited with maintaining social and family structure, affirming roles between man and woman, and setting the rules of engagement for relationships. It has also been used through time as a dramatic catalyst to many stories of love, betrayal, and more, further implementing the roles between husband and wife in popular culture.

As I write this blog, I am realizing how many options I have for looking at marriage: it’s possible to analyze marriage through the feminist perspective, or a media-centered perspective. There is also the option to pick a text about marriage, and specifically analyze the presented story through a narrative or dramatist perspective. The medium I chose to explore would be a strong determining factor in how I interpret the rhetorical message being presented. 

As a subject, marriage can also be looked at from many stand points. Politically, it is a relevant subject where an opportunity for a kairotic moment can be taken. The fact that gay marriage is such a popular topic in the present political atmosphere proves that marriage is an important aspect to American culture. Divorce rates are higher than ever; and although women still face sexism, the feminist movement has contributed to a shift in the attitude of women and their role as a “house-wife.”

Once I decide on the text, I can determine the perspective for my rhetorical analysis, which will influence the research I do for this paper. Along with research, I can rely on my own personal experience to elevate my own use of rhetoric. Since I am getting married soon, it could benefit my perceived ethos (unless an audience member doesn’t agree with marriage, than my ethos would be decreased). I will enforce a strong sense of logos through research and analysis, and I hope to invoke some emotional response (marriage could be romantic, tragic, and a topic of personal sensitivity to some) creating an appeal to pathos. 

Before I wrote this blog, I was really at a loss as to what subject to write about. Since I am getting married on the 27th, all I have time to think about is work, school, getting married, and going on the honeymoon (I can’t wait to go on vacation!!), I started off writing to be able to turn in the blog. However, now that I got the opportunity to critically analyze all the directions I can take on this subject, I think it I stumbled onto to my topic of choice. I am more excited to learn about some of the historical, and rhetorical aspects to marriage; who knows, maybe this can maybe give me some insight as to my own marriage.

Life After Rhetoric: Video Response

The more I learn about rhetoric, the more I want to yell “why didn’t anyone tell me this before?” I’ve realized the only reason I understand rhetoric, let alone know what it is, is because I took a class on rhetoric - my classmates, and maybe 3-5 more people, are the only others I know who know about rhetoric; that means that most of the people I have known throughout my life don’t really know what rhetoric is. I can’t help to think this is just a bit scary, especially now that I see how useful, and important, rhetoric is.

This video was great. Along with the readings, my idea of rhetoric has grown; it is obvious rhetoric is a significant factor in our human intellect. “Rhetoric creates reality in creating perception,” and I completely agree. I worked in a hotel for three years, and one of the things I learned that I still repeat today is that “one’s perception is their reality.” We would say this when thinking about the hotel guests and how their perception is the most important factor in a successful hotel experience. I never forgot that; to find this detail in this video made it’s impact even stronger.

It is only natural that the more I learn about rhetoric, the more I apply it in my life, and see it in my surroundings and interactions with people. Rhetoric is “language and argument.” I chose to get my BA in English because I love language, all it’s complexities, beauty, and power. Rhetoric has only established my love for language. I can see myself using it for the rest of my life, in every aspect, from personal to professional. It is the “process by which we can make informed decisions...a way of knowing,” it scares me that “people don’t questions the lives they live at all because they don’t have the ability to do that.” It’s as if I can see something that people who don’t know what rhetoric is don’t see. In fact I know it is.

The Narrative and Dramatist Perspectives

The Narrative perspective and Dramatist perspective seem to  share many ideas that deal with the relationship between the rhetor and audience, and the context of the given rhetorical situation. These are some of the ideas I tend to gravitate towards; especially after reading more on Kenneth Burke and his ideas of language as symbolic. Not only do they further enhance my awareness of how humans interact and how behaviors and language are attached to social norms (or non-norms), but the juxtaposition of language and how it is used as a tool for this awareness is what catches my attention. This may be my instinct because of my interest in creative writing. The process in which we analyze a text through the narrative or dramatist perspective can almost be compared to the way writers build stories based on setting, character, and situations. 

As I’ve mentioned before, I am still appalled that I have not come across rhetoric more often throughout my high school and college education. I honestly don’t even recall being taught anything about rhetoric in the English courses I took for my BA. Although any literary analysis was more a narrative or dramatist perspective (more narrative though), I find that my new knowledge of rhetoric has allowed me to understand the use of language in a deeper level; like viewing a underground layer I didn’t know existed. In dealing with the narrative and dramatist perspective, we explore the moral reasons behind actions within a situation, and the motives behind these morals. 

I do feel I have hit a wall in terms of material for the final project. Maybe I have exhausted the subjects that have come up in my life throughout the semester. One of my goals is to come up with an idea I have not explored yet. Because I like the narrative and dramatist perspective so much, I hope to find material that I am genuinely interested in learning more about. What it is, I don’t know.

Since both perspectives allow for analysis of stories, I know there is much material to choose from: movies, novels, short stories, etc. Although I have analyzed many novels in the past for other classes, by adding a rhetorical perspective of how to analyze a text in general will widen my understanding of a text. Where I feel it may be a scape goat for me to analyze something I already know how to analyze, I also think it would benefit me in both my academic and professional English life to be able to broaden my analytical skills, now that I have learned so much about rhetoric. It may be interesting to return to something I have read before, and use one of the rhetorical perspectives to analyze it.

Every Wedding is a Story

To put it in general terms, it is only natural for humans to assess a situation based on their natural and physical surroundings, relationships between those in the situation, and the context of why they are together, what they are doing, and what happens in the event of the situation.  After all, we are a self aware and self centered species; how we see ourselves is greatly tied to how we perceive these situations and relationships. “The narrative perspective focuses on the innate nature of human beings to understand and interpret the world around us through storytelling.” (pg 37, RPPC) In our self-awareness, and attachment to this perspective, we are dependent on stories - setting, characters, order or events, time, etc - to connect us to each other in the only ways we as humans can understand: how things happen, why they do, and what does that have to do with us?

I am getting married in less than 2 months. The story goes: a girl and a boy met while they were in a band together. They fell in love, got engaged, moved in, got a dog, got a joint bank account, and have the honeymoon all planned out. The conflict is, as it usually is, the wedding. How big will it be? Who’s invited? What kind of food, music, decorations, color schemes, dress, tux, shoes, hair, will they have? They decided to get married in at a Court House, and have a small dinner with the immediate family - mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. No one else.  However, as family members got wind of the small ceremony, it grew in size, and now they are having a wedding (active event). So the questions still remain...how big, who, what, where? At least we already know why they are getting married. Yes, love. (stative event).

Although it is a short version of the real story, it is cohesive because it is believable, and ultimately probable. The main issue of the story is the wedding, and the wedding is dependent on the reasons for having one - here, it is for family members to participate in the celebration. Therefore, it is good moral to have a wedding because of the values in family.

While the wedding is centered around two people getting married, it also stands to bring two families together, adding to the historical importance of family. The marriage between two people create and add to the historical and moral significance of human interaction. It can even be argued that it is a part of our innate need for a life partner, and for human procreation.

What this implies, as we have seen by the result of the conflict in the narrative, is that it is an accepted and predictable to have a wedding. While there can be exceptions to the case (where we tried to be an exception), it serves to show that having a wedding is appropriate behavior, even necessary, to getting married. In an effort to tie two families together through marriage, the wedding enforces family ideals and makes the marriage real (although it still would have been, wedding or not).

Rhetorical Negotiations

In any given rhetorical situation, a good rhetor should be able to identify their surroundings - the event itself, timing (kairos), and what kind of rhetor to be depending on the audience.

I am in the process of becoming a professional writer, in whatever context really, and it’s one of the reasons I returned to school for a Certificate in Public and Professional Writing. I also had the goal of participating in, and taking full advantage of, all the opportunities going to school can offer.  

One of my main goals was to to write for the school paper; and I’ve added editor to my list. In returning to school, I found rhetoric. I also found myself in rhetorical situations I had not been in before, and am discovering how my decisions go through a process of negotiation, even at the smallest level.

Style and arrangement go through negotiation because  of timing, audience, and the rhetorical situation itself. First, different components of different situations govern the rhetorical decisions being made by a rhetor.  Writing news for a paper requires understanding of the Associated Press style. It also requires a writer to have a specific, unbiased (unless it’s an opinion piece), regulated style and arrangement. The object is to capture the audience with the first sentence, the lede, a rule of arrangement for the specific rhetorical situation. 

While there is not much negotiation allowed in the application of the rules when writing for the paper, the social dynamics in those who write, and produce the paper, require a strong need for negotiation. 

A rhetor must understand when to seize a moment - kairos - in order to adapt to changing dynamics in the rhetorical situation. Just like in any job, I have to be professional and eager to learn. Yet, since it’s a school news paper, the atmosphere seems more laid back than it would be at the Herald, for example.  When talking paper business, the style becomes professional, to the point. When having a general conversation between co-worker, speaking style changes, and there is no arrangement at all. A rhetor must understand when to seize a moment - kairos - in order to adapt to changing dynamics in the rhetorical situation.

Writing for class, writing for the paper, or writing a short story - for there to be a successful message relayed to an audience, style and arrangement must be intentional, and adaptable. What I find interesting is how the flexibility of stylistic decisions - tone, conversational vs professional voice, etc) in a situations can be of better use in a kairotic moment; arrangement can be of better use planned before hand, yet, depending on a given rhetorical moment in a situation, a rhetor should be ready for movement within an arrangement, without affecting style.

A rhetor must be prepared for change, and understand that style and arrangement go hand in hand, and this is a reason why style and arrangement must be negotiated.  When a moment presents itself to veer of an arranged path, that is both a style and arrangement choice. At the same time,  a rhetor can decide on a style that lacks arrangement completely, where it is still a negotiation between the two, and on how to use them together, and standing alone.

Although there is little room for negotiation in arrangement and style when writing for a news paper, I the news paper experience (situations, working for a paper, and audience) rhetorically intertwined, like a big working rhetorical machine.

Ron Paul to Magazine Seller

This scenario occurred last week with my mom, which prompted me to wonder what Ron Paul’s would say:

During the course of a week, Ron Paul would be visited by up to 5 magazine sales-persons, with the same sales pitch, attempting to sell magazines in his neighborhood, where soliciting in not allowed. While relaxing after a hard days work, there is a knock at the door. He opens the door to find another magazine seller:

Seller: Hi, I wanted to offer you this wonderful package of magazines I am selling, and for every magazine you order, I get commission, and this would greatly help my cause.

Ron Paul: No thank you, I am not interested.

Seller: I am not on welfare, your neighborhood is beautiful, and it would be a great help.

Ron Paul: No No, I am really not interested, thank you.

Seller: Sir, this is great package deal, and you can get up to as many magazines as you want sent to your door.

Ron Paul: I am really not interested. You people have come knocking on my door 5 times this week already, soliciting is not allowed in this neighborhood, and I am not interested.

The seller instantly reacts angrily to Ron Paul’s use of “you people,” although he was referring to magazine sellers, and accuses him or being a racist, since the seller is African-American.

Ron Paul responds to this accusation: “I am sorry if I have offended you in any way Miss, however, I was referring to number of solicitors who have knocked on my door to sell magazines, and not at all referring to you on any racial grounds. After all, you are knocking on my door, on my private property, and breaking the law at that. I have to say that even if I were being discriminatory, in my own home, it would be in my right. “...Individuals are allowed to be creeps and pick and choose all their associations...they can discriminate even when the majority disapproves of their choices.” (pg. 75, Liberty Defined, Ron Paul)


To be fair, the use of "you people" when referring to race is a "reminder of America's long history of segregation of black people," and I agree with this fact. (pg. 221, ARCS) Both with my mom and the made up scenario with Ron Paul, this was not the intention. However, Ron Paul's views remain on the side of a right to one's own opinion, whether approved or not by a group of people, which would cause him to respond to situations from this point of view.

Encomium

I am not a psychologist. I have only been studying rhetoric for half a semester, so I certainly do not consider myself a professional rhetor. Still, in the need to praise someone for using rhetoric for the assignment, I will take a chance and use myself.

In the last month, I have been faced with situations beyond my control. When a family member, lets call them #1, of mine broke down, attempted suicide, and ended up in the hospital under lock down for 72 hours, the only thing I could do was hold on for the ride. In the process of analyzing the situation unfolding around me, watching how other family members reacted - or pretended not to - I saw an opportunity to use what I have been learning this semester to try and do something to change the direction  #1, and those around her, were headed towards. 

I started off with some research on the subject - causes, what to do, how to help, etc. I even made a call to a suicide hot line, something I never ever thought I'd need to do, and asked questions I thought I'd never ask. I began communicating with my parents, and other family members, to let them know what I had learned. The main issue, I saw, was the misunderstanding of why anyone would do something like attempt suicide, for the 3rd time at that. This is where I understood that logic and suicide do not go hand in hand, and a logical thinker could not begin to actually understand something as illogical as a suicide attempt. I used this realization as my solid weapon.

I made a plan. The goal was to convince #1 to get help. My next goal was to make sure her immediately family members were educated in the subject. I formulated questions, and sub questions that would initiate answers that would guide #1 into a way of thinking, different than her own, since it led to drastic measures. Although this was not the first suicide attempt, it was a first time someone attempted to convince her otherwise, sad but true. So I used every rhetorical device I could conjure up. It was a kairotic situation, I presented questions much like stasis theory to guide #1 into a mind frame of logic, and can only continue to communicate.  After all, rhetoric is an essential communication device.  Who knows what will happen, but just opening up a discourse in the subject, and with family, has widened everyone's perspective who was effected by the event.  

I guess this is more of a praise for rhetoric in general, and all the unexpected places one can find a time to use it.

Definitions and Rhetoric

Rhetoric. A new old thing I am faced with every day. It’s in what we wear, if we have make-up on or not, if we want something done and ask nicely or with an attitude,  or if we're looking for a job (which I am today). The possibilities really are endless. Yet, when it comes to defining something like rhetoric, something that we can’t hold or touch but can only see and hear, happening before us, it becomes a daunting climb to the top of an ice burg. I say an ice burg because we all know that only 10% of it shows on top, and the rest, the much bigger 90% is hiding under water, and as the Titanic learned the hard way, is never to be undermined.  

I think it's easier to define rhetoric by starting with it’s commonplace. It is a planned out communication tool used towards a specific outcome, usually viewed as persuasion or manipulation. This is a general idea of what rhetoric is and aims to do, and is probably one of the things the lead to it’s negative reputation.  But it does provide some insight, even though it may be about 10% of the definition.  With that, common topics are across the board ideas or views that can be shared by a group of people, not specified as a truth in a specific per-say, and may no be agreed on by some members of the groups. A common term to describe commonplaces or common topics, we can call generalizations.

As I mentioned in my last blog, kairos and stasis are intertwined in their uses for rhetoric.  The four stasis questions, along with the kairotic importance of an issue usually answered within the stasis, provide the a bigger chunk of how we use rhetoric and what it is.  The questions provide a system for discovery, a point of agreement or disagreement on a subject, and requires valid research to make an argument.  Ethos, logos, and pathos are also formalities in rhetoric we use daily, and help to guide perception for an audience.  

When I look up definition in my computer, some of the answers that come up are: “a statement of the exact meaning of a word,” and “the capacity of an instrument or device for making images distinct in outline.” Considering there are books written on how to define rhetoric, I don’t see how we can define rhetoric in the way definition is defined.  So, in an attempt: Rhetoric is like an ice burg.  What you see and hear, be it an argument, a debate, a commercial, anything that provides a well planned - the 90% we don’t see -  systematic use of kairos, stasis, commonplaces, and much more, in the name of an outcome, is a rhetorical act. Rhetoric. 

I’ll admit I had to try hard not to use the words manipulation or persuasion.

Kairos and Stasis

       One of the details about rhetoric I like to deliberate is that of kairos, and how important 


it is for stasis and a subject that is being considered. In order to understand the relevance of 


an issue, I had to think about the context of the situation, and the relevance to it's timing. I 


read my rhetorical analysis of Martin Luther King's speech "I've Been to the Mountaintop" to 


the class. One of my favorite criticisms made by a classmate was the lack of historical 


information supporting my analysis of the speech. This was important because I realized I 


failed to take advantage of the stasis theory in developing one of my main ideas - that King 


used a major kairotic moment (The Civil Rights Movement) to seize an opportunity - and to 


provide the background for the "kairotic moment" I used as a reference point in my analysis. I 


went back to revise my analysis and found many more questions I could answer if I took 


advantage of stasis.

       

     The four theories of stasis - conjecture, definition, quality, and policy - have allowed me 


to develop my ideas more in depth, and to explore issues I wouldn't have thought of 


otherwise. Although the goal remained the same, I discovered more, was able to expand on 


my ideas, and support them with examples and relevant information. Instead of changing my 


goal for the essay, it made it more specific, and gave me more material to work it; 


considering my goal did not change, in this situation it didn't seem it should have changed. 


Being exposed to stasis theory, however, has widened my view, not only with my essay.  


The questions presented by the stasis theory and kairos allow me to develop my ideas in 


any subject, and with this, I believe it is something I can apply to many different areas, both 


professionally and personally.

       

      Kairos and stasis emphasize an ideal of communication, and awareness.  Writing in 


public and professional contexts encompass a responsibility to aim for clear, concise, and a 


communicated reflection on a subject with an ability to present it clearly.  It's sad to imagine a 


world where we can't even sit and have a conversation without yelling, getting offended, and 


closing our minds to each other; it's scarier to think we are moving closer in that direction. 


Although there can be different perspectives to situations, the idea of agreeing, even to 


disagree, I think is an attempt at reaching a common ground. These ideas are appealing 


because it brings people together, opens up communication, and allows for an open 


environment; if used correctly. Even in personal settings, the ideas that stasis presents - fact 


(a truth), definition (it's context and why), quality (importance), and policy (how to interact) - 


can be applied when solving day to day problems people face when interacting with each 


other.  It allows people to learn from each other, and simply get along.  In writing in 


professional and public contexts, these qualities are important if there is to be freedom in the 


exchanging of ideas.

     I am only beginning to discover how kairos and stasis theory can help me in my own 


writing, and I am excited to have these tools to take with me in my career as a writer.

     

MLK Rhetorical Analysis Draft

Rhetorical Analysis of Martin Luther King speech “I’ve Been to the Top of the Mountain”

To begin with, the Civil Rights Movement was a perfect kairotic situation where Martin Luther King was able to build his image as an important public speaker.  The speech is written in a way that is meant to move an audience to a position of empowerment.  Thbhext uses ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the audience the ideals of the civil rights movement through religious, historical, personal experience, and at the time, current example the audience could relate to, and interpret as an invitation to join in the movement.

Considering the temperament of the day, his persona was built on the foundation of his speeches, public appearances and participation in many of the movement’s major events.   Not only was the timing perfect, but it was a combination of the movement, and his appearances in public that contributed to his appeal, establishing is use of ethos from the start.  

King’s  introduction reinforces his image as a friend himself, as well as his image as someone to trust and follow, appealing to ethos. From start to finish, his use of a “preacher voice” or even that of a martyr, remains calm, yet firm in conviction.  Pausing every 5-7 words, he allows the weight of his words to settle in for the audience, and gives them time to react and respond.   His mention of  God, the bible, and many allusions to religions reveals his use of logos and ethos: “and the Almighty said to me, "Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?" I would take my mental flight by Egypt and I would watch God's children in their magnificent trek from the dark dungeons of Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn't stop there.” The speech is even titled based on reference just mentioned, where Moses goes to the top of the mountain, and God speaks to him and reveals to him the 10 commandments.  King uses this as an opportunity to show the audience, first, that since God has told him to fight in this movement, and second, that God is protecting him and his people. Moving along, he takes the audience on a trip through history, revealing not only his knowledge, but also allowing the audience to experience other situations of slavery, and of power.  By giving them this knowledge, he provokes the idea “that we've got to stay together.”  His choice of remaining in the present, if God were to give him one, he remarks as “strange” to appeal to logos.  The audience is reinforced that it is his choice to be there making this speech, having done his research, and participated in other events in the movement.  

This speech serves as an invitation to the audience to be a part of the movement.  “We aren't engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying -- We are saying that we are God's children. And that we are God's children, we don't have to live like we are forced to live.” Although it is King who is speaking, and to the audience, he is also speaking on behalf of the audience.  This technique gives the audience a sense of belonging, engages the audience to think about their own role in their lives and the movement, and also offers solutions to these questions, all appealing to logos.  King maintains that the solutions “unity,” and his examples and references offer proof the solution works: “But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.”
He continues his use of “we” throughout the speech, and his references to his personal experiences appeals to ethos, while enforcing his credibility while undermining the “enemies” knowledge; that he and the audience “know better.”  

Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountain Top""

I decided to do my rhetorical analysis on Martin Luther King's speech "I've Been to the Mountain Top." To read and view the speech, click on the link:)


http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

What is Rhetoric and beyond

In just the first week of the semester, I have been faced with many definitions of rhetoric.  Each came with a disclaimer: “there are many ways to define rhetoric.” From what I can conjure up, rhetoric is a communication tool, used to persuade or convince.  It’s uses reach beyond day-to-day, speaker/audience communication.  I see it as the manipulation of perception.  Considering we are faced with rhetorical “attacks” on a daily basis, I am somewhat shocked that this is not taught in depth, if at all, in high school or even earlier.  Although I had heard the word before, it seems important anyone should have an understanding of how it affects our own perception of our lives, especially in such a public, media driven time.  I am even more surprised at the lack of mention of rhetoric during my studies for a BA in English Lit. at FIU.  For my certificate in public and professional writing, and hopefully a future in writing professionally and creatively, it's obvious rhetoric will be one of the most important aspects to my career.