Williams and Cultural Perception

Rhetoric, a topic so seemingly concrete, is revealed by Williams to be the victim of cultural perception. Its meaning has not remained one of fixed rigidity over time, but has changed along with the needs of society itself. Rhetoric has moved from being a privilege of the view to being a right for all, commonplace in the ordinary classroom, as opposed to the democracy of Greece.
Erwin Panofsky, often acclaimed as the greatest art historian of the 20th century, invented the notion of hidden or disguised symbolism, which he then employed to decode the images found within Renaissance art. Lilies displayed in Jan Van Eyck’s painting of the depiction of the annunciation of the Virgin Mary were explained by Panofsky as being a sign of her purity where before, they were simply flowers.

How could a practice as obvious as this one be something of groundbreaking importance? Cultural perception. What was easily recognized as Biblical symbolism in the time of the Renaissance was lost to the following generations, only to be rediscovered again, hundreds of years later, to immense praise.

Similarly, rhetoric as a means of persuasion by the elite was lost to the years that followed the Greeks and Romans. As the needs and values of culture change, our ways of thinking follow. Today, we are a culture of speed, of efficiency, of instant gratification. The postman does not deliver handwritten letters of correspondence. The mail I receive is composed of bills, magazines, or the occasional catalog. As the years progress, I expect even these will become obsolete. In fact, they are well on their way. Email will most likely reign superior, even among the staunchest of snail mail supporters.

These changes have come to affect the rhetoric of our time, composition. As Williams writes, “Growing numbers of young people use what is called “restricted code”- language characterized by a limited vocabulary and an inability to communicate abstract ideas- that is painfully unsuited to conveying anything but the most shallow concepts” (2). The mode of the letter is extinct, text messages have replaced it. I have a sophomoric sister in high school. I have seen, and cringed, at the methods of expression, as follows:

Texter #1- hey wat u up to
Texted #2- idk chillin
Texter #1- o cool
Texter #2- r u bored
Texter #1- yea

Any textual conversation between me and my friends seems to have a lot more detail, fully spelled words, and punctuation found within. However, the way the youth (and unfortunately, the occasional adult) of today communicates has begun to spill into the school environment. Abbreviations and words shortened to just one lonely letter are convenient. Such inane outputs of emotion take only a second to send into the world. Yes, it is uncreative and uninspired, but it is effective. At least adults who morph the written word into those of convenience know the difference. Sadly, the children of today do not seem to, having grown into this world of literary restriction. As an observer in middle school, I received far too many articles to grade among the aforementioned variety. It’s scary.

The cultural perception of Panofsky does exist. We’re looking at what language might become. The written speech of today looks nothing like that of old English. How do we stop it from decomposing further? That is the question.