Making Connections

When I saw that much of this chapter is on the history of the development of rhetoric in ancient Greece, I must admit that I was disappointed. After spending the last few weeks with Peter Elbow and getting to try out new ideas and techniques, I was prepared for more of the same. So I settled in and resigned myself to an evening with Aristotle, thinking that I wasn’t going to learn much that I could put into actual practice. To my chagrin, Williams seemed to catch on to me right away. On page 3 he tells us that we would be short-sighted if we try to teach the methods of writing without understanding the theory and history of rhetoric. Ok, Mr. Williams, I thought to myself. You caught me. So, tell me why I need this? It was his third reason that convinced me to read on. He explained that the social, ethical, and political dimensions of language can’t be ignored, and that knowing this history of rhetoric will help us understand the influence we exert. I agree with this completely. As a teacher, I will have a very large influence on my students. What and how I teach them will shape many facets of who they become. So I was off to Greece.

A few years ago I took an Intro to Philosophy course and was taught much of the history that Williams writes about. I can even still remember the professor writing the word “Rhetoric” on the board and asking us what we thought the word meant, followed by him telling us that it was the theory of knowing. Because, as Williams points out, the word has several different meanings, I assumed that the “Rhetoric” I learned about in philosophy would be different that the “Rhetoric” I would learn in regards to writing. Now, having re-read the history, I see the connection.

It is actually Socrates and Plato that strike me the most, especially in Plato’s dialogues; Apology, Crito and Phaedo. I remember reading all three of these works in their entirety (no easy task!) and wondering why it was that Socrates chose to treat the politicians, who literally held his life in their hands, with such contempt. I later learned that he did this simply because he loved Athens too much to allow himself to win his case. If he had managed to get the politicians to reduce the charges against him, he wouldn’t have lost his life, but he would have been banished from Athens for life. So he used his rhetoric to make sure that didn’t happen. The reason this story strikes such a chord with me is because of the way Socrates presented his case. He formed his questions during his trial so that before they could be answered, the jury had to really think them through. He also used his rhetorical skills to makes sure the outcome was what he wanted it to be. He used rhetoric to teach and to persuade; two very important aspects of writing. Ah!! The connection!