Showing posts with label Blog 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog 3. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Everything's rhetoric
"Everything's rhetoric" was a favorite saying of one of my old rhetoric professors. "Look at that door," she'd tell us. "What rhetorical elements do you see in the door?" Eventually, we'd realize that it had a lock (which argues for something), had a small, high window (which argues for something), was painted the same color as the other doors in the hallway (which argues for something). It's all part of rhetoric. Your blog responses on the reading (considering a few of you found it heavy or boring) were all thoughtful and insightful . Jason and Winnona both bring up the question of how to teach rhetoric, and I think that the fact you're teaching writing ultimately means you'll be teaching rhetoric whether you know it or not -- Williams (and I) want you to know it. Several of you (Amber and Amber and Liz) all touched upon the idea of rhetoric as part of the legal system. Yes, it's a huge part of the legal system which is not, as we like to believe, based on justice (or Plato's Truth) but on probabilities and the ability to argue those probabilities. Sue wonders about the advent of technology and how its emergence effects theories of rhetoric. The answer is that the theories remain the same, just as they did when we moved from an oral based rhetoric to the technology of writing with parchment and quill. Visual rhetoric, too, has always existed, and rhetoricians often invoke images or refer to familiar objects (doors with locks, monuments, etc.). Art, photography, bumper stickers, posters, paintings -- all rhetoric. But as Rachael points out, the cultural perception of rhetoric continues to shift, until we now tend to see what Jamie terms "the danger of words," or, as Jen points out, the corruption of politicians. It's hard to trudge through to begin with, but once you've covered the basics it's fun stuff -- but stuff that affects all of us every day. That's why it's important for writers and for teachers of writing to understand that writing is rhetoric. I look forward to next week's thoughts as we move into ideas about discourse and the composition movement.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Art of Rhetoric
In high school I can remember one of my English teachers explaining how her son was taking a course in rhetoric in a college down in Georgia. At the time, I had no idea what the meant so she explained that it was basically a class that focused on giving speeches. She said all colleges have these courses and at that moment, I dreaded the thought of having to enter into a class for rhetoric - public speaking being one of my least favorite experiences. So the first year in college, I had Freshman Symposium. This was my ‘rhetoric and composition’ class that focused on reading texts, writing papers, and then giving a twenty minute speech about a research paper I had developed over the semester. I hated having to talk to the class all by myself for an extended period of time, but I got over it and blew a sigh of relief when the ordeal was over, thinking that I’d gotten rhetoric out of the way.
Reading Williams, however, shows that you can’t really get away from rhetoric. For me rhetoric is somewhat of a hard concept to grasp, especially now that I’ve seen how many different elements have contributed to the modern idea of rhetoric. Apparently, it’s not just about giving speeches. True, Williams points out, the ancient sophists used it to “make ridiculous claims seem reasonable” and to persuade people to believe in their stance (I’m pretty sure this tradition has lasted as a principle weapon in the arsenals of lawyers and politicians) (8). Still there are many different facets on the topic of rhetoric. For instance, I never realized that rhetoric played such an important part in keeping aristocracies alive in Ancient Greece or that Socrates and Plato used it to hold back the “common people” who they saw as ignorant or stupid (17). Another thing I hadn’t considered fully is that rhetoric is also based in writing. Presidents and leaders from across the globe give plenty of speeches, but there’s always someone doing the writing first.
I found the way that Williams describes how, historically, rhetoric entered Western educational systems and faded into the background tedious, yet fascinating. Being able to look at an issue from different perspectives and garner ‘truth’ about that issue took talent, instruction, and practice are key aspects of rhetoric and the last three elements are still considered crucial today in all fields of learning (15). What’s interesting to see then is how rhetoric has disappeared from the foreground of education because it’s considered to fall within the arts instead of the sciences. As Williams notes, rhetoric deals not only with speaking and writing, but with emotion, psychology, grammar, logic and reasoning skills, etc. Modern curriculums seem to be failing students (as evidenced by the poor reading and writing skills on tests and in everyday occurrences, such as sending text messages). Without giving the necessary attention to the art of rhetoric, students will not be able to keep up with standards of their peers around the globe who are bypassing them in achievement levels in both the arts and sciences.
Reading Williams, however, shows that you can’t really get away from rhetoric. For me rhetoric is somewhat of a hard concept to grasp, especially now that I’ve seen how many different elements have contributed to the modern idea of rhetoric. Apparently, it’s not just about giving speeches. True, Williams points out, the ancient sophists used it to “make ridiculous claims seem reasonable” and to persuade people to believe in their stance (I’m pretty sure this tradition has lasted as a principle weapon in the arsenals of lawyers and politicians) (8). Still there are many different facets on the topic of rhetoric. For instance, I never realized that rhetoric played such an important part in keeping aristocracies alive in Ancient Greece or that Socrates and Plato used it to hold back the “common people” who they saw as ignorant or stupid (17). Another thing I hadn’t considered fully is that rhetoric is also based in writing. Presidents and leaders from across the globe give plenty of speeches, but there’s always someone doing the writing first.
I found the way that Williams describes how, historically, rhetoric entered Western educational systems and faded into the background tedious, yet fascinating. Being able to look at an issue from different perspectives and garner ‘truth’ about that issue took talent, instruction, and practice are key aspects of rhetoric and the last three elements are still considered crucial today in all fields of learning (15). What’s interesting to see then is how rhetoric has disappeared from the foreground of education because it’s considered to fall within the arts instead of the sciences. As Williams notes, rhetoric deals not only with speaking and writing, but with emotion, psychology, grammar, logic and reasoning skills, etc. Modern curriculums seem to be failing students (as evidenced by the poor reading and writing skills on tests and in everyday occurrences, such as sending text messages). Without giving the necessary attention to the art of rhetoric, students will not be able to keep up with standards of their peers around the globe who are bypassing them in achievement levels in both the arts and sciences.
Ode to Williams
I just finished reading Williams’ chapter on the foundations of rhetoric. All of I have to say about it, is this: I miss Peter Elbow already. Now, I am sure there are many of you out there who found Elbow to be boring, or full of hot air, or whatever. And that’s fine. Obviously, I don’t expect that everyone is going to be bowled over by what they read in any class, no matter the subject. But I felt a lot of stuff he had to say was interesting, and, if nothing else, I liked his writing style.
But I digress. Getting back to Williams…like I said, I just finished with it, and, at least initially, I feel like I just sat through a high school history class again. The chapter dealt with a ton of historical background, which is great if that’s your thing, but, to be honest, I really struggled to get through the piece. I understand that Williams feels that he must lay down some type of foundation for his readers before he actually gets into the business end of teaching writing (at least I think that’s his approach?), but does it have to be so dry and boring? Although, I really can’t think of another way to introduce all that stuff that he included in the chapter.
Other than talking about how boring the stuff was, I how I disliked it, I really don’t know what else to talk about. I guess I could say that I’ll need to come up with some creative ways to teach these topics to my students once I begin my teacher career – assuming that I can dupe some school out there into hiring me. If I can’t find any valuable lessons in whatever it is that I am teaching, and then surely my students will notice that I am dispassionate, and eventually they will lose interest in the lesson as well.
Now, I am not suggesting that Williams’ chapter has no value. That would be foolish for of me to say. But, I am suggesting that, in my opinion, it reads like a history book. Usually, I like history. I watch the History channel on TV a lot. There’s some interesting stuff on there – shows on Abe Lincoln, or ancient Rome, or whatever. That’s entertaining. Conversely, Williams is not. But that’s okay. I’ve got to read it anyway. If I try to fake it my blogs won’t make any sense. And, knowing my luck, some principal out there will ask me a question about rhetoric during a job interview, and then I’ll flub up the interview and never get a job – ever. I’ll have to join the circus and train monkeys (although that might be fun). Clearly, I am embellishing here, but I am running out of things to say, and since this is my blog I figure I can talk about anything that I want (within reason), as long as it pertains to this class.
I wonder what Socrates would have to say about blogs? I wonder what the ancient Greeks and Romans would think about the vast proliferation of communication that we have in modern society. Now, everyone has a chance to voice his or her opinion in some form...but is this positive? I don’t know. I will have to think about that.
Sorry if this blog is a bit disoriented.
But I digress. Getting back to Williams…like I said, I just finished with it, and, at least initially, I feel like I just sat through a high school history class again. The chapter dealt with a ton of historical background, which is great if that’s your thing, but, to be honest, I really struggled to get through the piece. I understand that Williams feels that he must lay down some type of foundation for his readers before he actually gets into the business end of teaching writing (at least I think that’s his approach?), but does it have to be so dry and boring? Although, I really can’t think of another way to introduce all that stuff that he included in the chapter.
Other than talking about how boring the stuff was, I how I disliked it, I really don’t know what else to talk about. I guess I could say that I’ll need to come up with some creative ways to teach these topics to my students once I begin my teacher career – assuming that I can dupe some school out there into hiring me. If I can’t find any valuable lessons in whatever it is that I am teaching, and then surely my students will notice that I am dispassionate, and eventually they will lose interest in the lesson as well.
Now, I am not suggesting that Williams’ chapter has no value. That would be foolish for of me to say. But, I am suggesting that, in my opinion, it reads like a history book. Usually, I like history. I watch the History channel on TV a lot. There’s some interesting stuff on there – shows on Abe Lincoln, or ancient Rome, or whatever. That’s entertaining. Conversely, Williams is not. But that’s okay. I’ve got to read it anyway. If I try to fake it my blogs won’t make any sense. And, knowing my luck, some principal out there will ask me a question about rhetoric during a job interview, and then I’ll flub up the interview and never get a job – ever. I’ll have to join the circus and train monkeys (although that might be fun). Clearly, I am embellishing here, but I am running out of things to say, and since this is my blog I figure I can talk about anything that I want (within reason), as long as it pertains to this class.
I wonder what Socrates would have to say about blogs? I wonder what the ancient Greeks and Romans would think about the vast proliferation of communication that we have in modern society. Now, everyone has a chance to voice his or her opinion in some form...but is this positive? I don’t know. I will have to think about that.
Sorry if this blog is a bit disoriented.
This was quite a change of pace after reading Elbow. I never really thought about the history of rhetoric. It was interesting to read about its' development over time and all the different philosophies that were involved. Although I took a philosophy class in my early college years, I don't remember much if any of what I learned about rhetoric.
I learned a lot of history including information about the sophists. It is not unrealistic to see why they used speeches to sway juries for money. It also stated that they "used rhetoric to obscure the truth rather than discover it". Doesn't this sound like modern day lawyers? It was hard times and they needed to support themselves. I actually understand their later theory that truth is relative stating that "each person involved is 'right' because each sees one facet of the truth." I think that this is how a lot of people feel when they fight/debate. If you only see your own side, you never understand the other person's reasoning. By exploring the other side of an issue, you can arrive at the actual truth. This idea is seen in Western education and today's eduation. While reading anothers' research and write your response to it. Individuals can decide whether they agree/disagree and find others to support their answer while also challenging the others' viewpoint.
The idea of talent, instruction, and practice being needed to be a good writer is debatable. I don't know if I agree that good writing is the result of talent rather than effort. If someone attends college and takes all of the required courses, they should be able to be at least a decent writer. If a person edits, revises, and works really hard on a piece than I think their effort could pay off. However, talent would make it easier and more fluent. Even good writers with talent have to put in a lot of effort to write a worthy piece of writing.
I found it interesting that before 1870, writing was judged by content and not mechanics. I am surprised in a way that society let go of this more creative and open way of evaluation. Not to say that grammar is not important, because it is, but someone could write a really interesting piece, but have lots of grammar problems which would turn this paper into a very low score. I would like to see more content grading. (like these blogs). It is important to make sure that people know how to formulate and correctly punctuate a document, but it is not the most important aspect of writing. It is the easiest to correct and it makes a small difference to the ideas and point of the writing.
I learned a lot of history including information about the sophists. It is not unrealistic to see why they used speeches to sway juries for money. It also stated that they "used rhetoric to obscure the truth rather than discover it". Doesn't this sound like modern day lawyers? It was hard times and they needed to support themselves. I actually understand their later theory that truth is relative stating that "each person involved is 'right' because each sees one facet of the truth." I think that this is how a lot of people feel when they fight/debate. If you only see your own side, you never understand the other person's reasoning. By exploring the other side of an issue, you can arrive at the actual truth. This idea is seen in Western education and today's eduation. While reading anothers' research and write your response to it. Individuals can decide whether they agree/disagree and find others to support their answer while also challenging the others' viewpoint.
The idea of talent, instruction, and practice being needed to be a good writer is debatable. I don't know if I agree that good writing is the result of talent rather than effort. If someone attends college and takes all of the required courses, they should be able to be at least a decent writer. If a person edits, revises, and works really hard on a piece than I think their effort could pay off. However, talent would make it easier and more fluent. Even good writers with talent have to put in a lot of effort to write a worthy piece of writing.
I found it interesting that before 1870, writing was judged by content and not mechanics. I am surprised in a way that society let go of this more creative and open way of evaluation. Not to say that grammar is not important, because it is, but someone could write a really interesting piece, but have lots of grammar problems which would turn this paper into a very low score. I would like to see more content grading. (like these blogs). It is important to make sure that people know how to formulate and correctly punctuate a document, but it is not the most important aspect of writing. It is the easiest to correct and it makes a small difference to the ideas and point of the writing.
History of rhetoric
After reading Williams history of rhetoric I know why I call myself an “illiterate, literate”.
Writing our own literacy narrative really pointed out to me my feelings towards writing.
I have always wanted to write but because of my past failures with writing from high school to college I always shied away from it. Not until I read this history did I realize that I had been set up to fail at writing due the influences of history.
Like Williams points out I learned how to write apparently according to the Harvard Model. Writing as an “inductive process” where most of the emphasis on writing revolves around sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and word choice. I know I still start and stop as I write, reading and rereading sentences because they don’t sound correct. I edit them and then when I move on I have lost my flow of thinking. But from what I remember in high school most of my papers were not really graded on content just grammar.
I would have to say that my desire to be a writing teacher stems from my own struggles with writing. There must be a better way than how I was taught to help students with rhetoric. If the definition of rhetoric according to this book is “something people study and something that they apply to influence others” then we do have to look at the history of rhetoric as an evolving process. This should be a process that takes the good parts of all the theories, and morphs them into something flexible, practical, and usable.
Those are three areas I feel from my own experience were not available to me.
It seems obvious to me that throughout history theorists were influenced not only by each other but also by politics, religion, and economics. I think we still have those influences maybe not in the exact same ways but they play a role in educating students in rhetoric. Today we have the added influence of technology and I am not sure how long it will take to see the effect that has on student learning. Once it can be seen I’m sure a new theory will have to be developed to counter all the changes in the way people communicate.
Writing our own literacy narrative really pointed out to me my feelings towards writing.
I have always wanted to write but because of my past failures with writing from high school to college I always shied away from it. Not until I read this history did I realize that I had been set up to fail at writing due the influences of history.
Like Williams points out I learned how to write apparently according to the Harvard Model. Writing as an “inductive process” where most of the emphasis on writing revolves around sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and word choice. I know I still start and stop as I write, reading and rereading sentences because they don’t sound correct. I edit them and then when I move on I have lost my flow of thinking. But from what I remember in high school most of my papers were not really graded on content just grammar.
I would have to say that my desire to be a writing teacher stems from my own struggles with writing. There must be a better way than how I was taught to help students with rhetoric. If the definition of rhetoric according to this book is “something people study and something that they apply to influence others” then we do have to look at the history of rhetoric as an evolving process. This should be a process that takes the good parts of all the theories, and morphs them into something flexible, practical, and usable.
Those are three areas I feel from my own experience were not available to me.
It seems obvious to me that throughout history theorists were influenced not only by each other but also by politics, religion, and economics. I think we still have those influences maybe not in the exact same ways but they play a role in educating students in rhetoric. Today we have the added influence of technology and I am not sure how long it will take to see the effect that has on student learning. Once it can be seen I’m sure a new theory will have to be developed to counter all the changes in the way people communicate.
The Rhetoric Journey
This book was definitely a change in pace from Peter Elbow’s book. However, as long as it was I feel like I learned a lot. I never knew there was so much involved in the definition of rhetoric and how much it changed over time. Also, as a future English teacher I’m going to have to know some background.
To me, the Sophists were most interesting. I never heard about them before, which is surprising because they marked the origins of rhetoric. I found it fascinating how the Sophists were able to manipulate language and enable people to be victorious in court. They may have blurred to truth, but they did save lives and receive an abundance of money. I thought they were surprisingly smart and ahead of their time. Protagorus had values that reminded me a lot of our court systems today. He explains a fact as “what a majority of people (as members of a given group) agree to call a ‘fact’ until they have some reason not to” (11). This is similar to the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I was intrigued that such ancient ideals are still so crucial in our society today. I, also, enjoyed Gorgias’ views. I thought it was neat how he could argue one side and then argue another side and this lead to “empty rhetoric.” This could have really influenced debates and even psychology, because you have to fully understand the other side. You really have to get in someone else’s mind and understand what he or she is thinking. He states, “ . . . the uncertain mixture of what was true and what was false that made up reality” (13). I love the way he critically analyzed every detail. It is so true that reality is a mix of truths and lies and one has to be aware of that concept. Gorgias’ ideas probably even lead the way to a lot of critical theories. He really seemed to analyze everything from a different perspective, and I’m sure it probably took on a whole new meaning for him.
After reading Williams, I feel like Plato and Socrates were too conservative. I was stunned that so many of the great minds didn’t like each other. I guess great minds don’t always think alike. I would have thought that everyone who came before would be looked at with admiration. I did not know that Plato was involved with the Thirty Tyrants. I find it very mind boggling that individuals, who are considered to be so wise and smart, can be involved in so many wrongdoings. I thought Augustine had an interesting take on rhetoric, by using it to analyze the Bible. Overall, I was most interested in what the Sophists had to say, because they formed the beginning. Everyone else had their own contributions, but they played a lot off of the people who came before them.
I feel like we have come a long way since the time of the Greeks, but apparently we have not. I couldn’t believe that 70% of freshmen college students at California State University have remedial writing skills. What are we doing so wrong? Clearly, we need to learn the history of rhetoric, but I feel like there is a huge component that must be missing.
To me, the Sophists were most interesting. I never heard about them before, which is surprising because they marked the origins of rhetoric. I found it fascinating how the Sophists were able to manipulate language and enable people to be victorious in court. They may have blurred to truth, but they did save lives and receive an abundance of money. I thought they were surprisingly smart and ahead of their time. Protagorus had values that reminded me a lot of our court systems today. He explains a fact as “what a majority of people (as members of a given group) agree to call a ‘fact’ until they have some reason not to” (11). This is similar to the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I was intrigued that such ancient ideals are still so crucial in our society today. I, also, enjoyed Gorgias’ views. I thought it was neat how he could argue one side and then argue another side and this lead to “empty rhetoric.” This could have really influenced debates and even psychology, because you have to fully understand the other side. You really have to get in someone else’s mind and understand what he or she is thinking. He states, “ . . . the uncertain mixture of what was true and what was false that made up reality” (13). I love the way he critically analyzed every detail. It is so true that reality is a mix of truths and lies and one has to be aware of that concept. Gorgias’ ideas probably even lead the way to a lot of critical theories. He really seemed to analyze everything from a different perspective, and I’m sure it probably took on a whole new meaning for him.
After reading Williams, I feel like Plato and Socrates were too conservative. I was stunned that so many of the great minds didn’t like each other. I guess great minds don’t always think alike. I would have thought that everyone who came before would be looked at with admiration. I did not know that Plato was involved with the Thirty Tyrants. I find it very mind boggling that individuals, who are considered to be so wise and smart, can be involved in so many wrongdoings. I thought Augustine had an interesting take on rhetoric, by using it to analyze the Bible. Overall, I was most interested in what the Sophists had to say, because they formed the beginning. Everyone else had their own contributions, but they played a lot off of the people who came before them.
I feel like we have come a long way since the time of the Greeks, but apparently we have not. I couldn’t believe that 70% of freshmen college students at California State University have remedial writing skills. What are we doing so wrong? Clearly, we need to learn the history of rhetoric, but I feel like there is a huge component that must be missing.
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.
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.
Oh My!
Oh My! That is what I thought as I read the first 30 pages or so of James Williams, Preparing to Teach Writing. That was a whole lot of information in not so many pages. Fortunately in all the History, Speech and Philosophy classes that I have taken we have covered most of that information. It was still overwhelming for me though to read this in the context of this is how to teach writing. I am still digesting the historical information I guess on how it will assist me in my knowledge as a writing teacher.
I did find a few quotes within this section very interesting. One in particular I think I want to address and that is on page 16. William writes, “It continues to be important in composition studies because so many teachers, students, and parents believe that good writing is the result of talent rather than effort.” I am not sure if I agree with this….
I assume in a sense you have to possess some sort of knack in something that you aspire to do well, but even the NFL, MLB, and even Motorcross racers practice. I think if you want to do something you can become good at it with practice and an inborn talent is not always necessary to accomplish this task. Maybe it is not talent, but desire to do well that makes that person triumph in their endeavors.
The Harvard model was interesting to read about. I said of a state our education system in when we look at the students they are producing. The scary thing is they are not just reproducing students that are going to be laborers and clerks, but doctors, lawyers, dentist and yes even the teacher that will then teach/ or not teach, the same vicious cycle. Oh My!
I did find a few quotes within this section very interesting. One in particular I think I want to address and that is on page 16. William writes, “It continues to be important in composition studies because so many teachers, students, and parents believe that good writing is the result of talent rather than effort.” I am not sure if I agree with this….
I assume in a sense you have to possess some sort of knack in something that you aspire to do well, but even the NFL, MLB, and even Motorcross racers practice. I think if you want to do something you can become good at it with practice and an inborn talent is not always necessary to accomplish this task. Maybe it is not talent, but desire to do well that makes that person triumph in their endeavors.
The Harvard model was interesting to read about. I said of a state our education system in when we look at the students they are producing. The scary thing is they are not just reproducing students that are going to be laborers and clerks, but doctors, lawyers, dentist and yes even the teacher that will then teach/ or not teach, the same vicious cycle. Oh My!
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!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Thoughts About Rhetoric
I, like others, thought that this week’s reading was a little heavy. It was full of a lot of history. But inside the 40 pages of history, I did find some things that stuck out to me as interesting discussion points.
Rhetoric...
I found this week’s reading very overwhelming. There was a ton of information in those 40 pages. I did not enjoy reading Williams as much as I did with Elbow. This is probably because Williams is a much heavier reading than Elbow. What is rhetoric? If I were to write down what I thought rhetoric was, I would never have used anything that Williams discusses. I would have simply said that it is a part o language used to persuade someone. There is much more to it than what I could have ever imagined. I am not sure I was able to absorb everything that I read. I found that the reading became some what boring at times. I will say that I liked the concept Corax used to teach Tisias. I also found it interesting that Williams says that rhetoric might not have existed before Plato wrote his dialogue Gorgias.
I am sure everyone has heard of Socrates and his student, Plato. Socrates used the question and answer approach. I found it interesting that Socrates did not like the idea of writing. He said that it “dulls the memory.” Also, Socrates did not think of himself as a teacher, even though he had several students. Plato was his best student. We only know about Socrates because Plato documented everything that he learned. The next philosopher Williams discusses is Aristotle. He had a lot of influence on rhetoric. He thought of rhetoric as an extracurricular activity. I read that as he really did not care about rhetoric as much as other things. I believe Aristotle makes the most sense when he defined rhetoric. He defines rhetoric, in a nut shell, exactly how I defined it previously.
Is rhetoric an art or a science? My initial reaction would be to say that it is an art. After reading all the different examples from philosophers, I would probably say that rhetoric is both an art and a science. This section opened my eyes to what rhetoric actually is and from where it came. I liked that it gave a great deal of perspectives on rhetoric, even though it was some what confusing at times.
I found the last few pages the most interesting. I was some what surprised that a large number of first college students have poor writing skills. What are our high schools teaching their students? The writing assessment tests prove that schools are not teaching their students the proper skills they need to write at a college level. I would have rather read more recent issues that dealt with rhetoric, such as the last few pages.
I am sure everyone has heard of Socrates and his student, Plato. Socrates used the question and answer approach. I found it interesting that Socrates did not like the idea of writing. He said that it “dulls the memory.” Also, Socrates did not think of himself as a teacher, even though he had several students. Plato was his best student. We only know about Socrates because Plato documented everything that he learned. The next philosopher Williams discusses is Aristotle. He had a lot of influence on rhetoric. He thought of rhetoric as an extracurricular activity. I read that as he really did not care about rhetoric as much as other things. I believe Aristotle makes the most sense when he defined rhetoric. He defines rhetoric, in a nut shell, exactly how I defined it previously.
Is rhetoric an art or a science? My initial reaction would be to say that it is an art. After reading all the different examples from philosophers, I would probably say that rhetoric is both an art and a science. This section opened my eyes to what rhetoric actually is and from where it came. I liked that it gave a great deal of perspectives on rhetoric, even though it was some what confusing at times.
I found the last few pages the most interesting. I was some what surprised that a large number of first college students have poor writing skills. What are our high schools teaching their students? The writing assessment tests prove that schools are not teaching their students the proper skills they need to write at a college level. I would have rather read more recent issues that dealt with rhetoric, such as the last few pages.
At Home
Williams opens his book with the history of rhetoric. I love it. It is kind of heavy, but there are so many things about the first 40 pages that I had little knowledge of and found extremely interesting.
The first thing that really stands out in my mind is the example of Corax and Tisias (4). Let me say, Corax was a genus. It was at this point that I realized that the subsequent information on rhetoric was going to show a strong correlation with law and the courts. Ultimately, I am planning on going to law school and I have to say that this was the first time that I connected the term rhetoric with the judiciary process. It makes absolute sense. Rhetoric is “a field of study that examines the means by which speakers and writers influence states of mind and actions in other people” (1). We can apply this definition to law just as easily to education. I think I am starting to feel at home in a room full of education majors!
It is interesting to me to see the kind of negative light that rhetoric took throughout its early history. This shows just how powerful rhetoric really is. Of all of the groups of teachers, I believe that English teachers have the power to shape the future. Up until know, I never really grasped just how influential those who have mastered rhetoric have been throughout history. In the short amount of reading that we did, rhetoric influenced so many different areas, including the two huge areas of democracy and religion. I think in many instances, the people that possess the power to sway people with their speaking and writing are almost feared. With this power there seems to be a tendency to fall into corruption as well. For example, the Sophists were able to make ludicrous amounts of money by making unreasonable arguments reasonable. Because of this, they gained a horrible reputation. Modern day lawyers kind of mirror this image.
Finally, I can’t end this blog without mentioning Isocrates. “In his view, formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without ability, except give them some general knowledge of the subject” (15). What?! This really bothered me. Yes, I do believe that some people will possess a greater level ability just like some people are natural born athletes and some are not. Just like a person with no athletic ability, I think if you have the determination and drive you can at least improve your skills. If not, what is the purpose of teaching?
The first thing that really stands out in my mind is the example of Corax and Tisias (4). Let me say, Corax was a genus. It was at this point that I realized that the subsequent information on rhetoric was going to show a strong correlation with law and the courts. Ultimately, I am planning on going to law school and I have to say that this was the first time that I connected the term rhetoric with the judiciary process. It makes absolute sense. Rhetoric is “a field of study that examines the means by which speakers and writers influence states of mind and actions in other people” (1). We can apply this definition to law just as easily to education. I think I am starting to feel at home in a room full of education majors!
It is interesting to me to see the kind of negative light that rhetoric took throughout its early history. This shows just how powerful rhetoric really is. Of all of the groups of teachers, I believe that English teachers have the power to shape the future. Up until know, I never really grasped just how influential those who have mastered rhetoric have been throughout history. In the short amount of reading that we did, rhetoric influenced so many different areas, including the two huge areas of democracy and religion. I think in many instances, the people that possess the power to sway people with their speaking and writing are almost feared. With this power there seems to be a tendency to fall into corruption as well. For example, the Sophists were able to make ludicrous amounts of money by making unreasonable arguments reasonable. Because of this, they gained a horrible reputation. Modern day lawyers kind of mirror this image.
Finally, I can’t end this blog without mentioning Isocrates. “In his view, formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without ability, except give them some general knowledge of the subject” (15). What?! This really bothered me. Yes, I do believe that some people will possess a greater level ability just like some people are natural born athletes and some are not. Just like a person with no athletic ability, I think if you have the determination and drive you can at least improve your skills. If not, what is the purpose of teaching?
Rhetorically speaking...
Without powerful rhetoric, the world of history and literature would barely stumble by. Many wonderful pieces of literature and moving speeches would just not have that “wow” factor without the application of compelling rhetoric. For instance, what if the following excerpts of literature and rhetoric were originally written or spoken as the altered words that follow each example?
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet:
“See how she leans her cheek upon her hand! O, that I were a glove upon that hand, That I might touch that cheek!
OR… “My girl is hot. I like how she moves. I wish my hand was on her cheeks, if you know what I mean.
Jesus, The Bible:
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
OR... “I’m God. Hand ‘em over.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream:
“I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”
OR…”I think I have a pretty good idea. Wouldn’t it would be nice if maybe one day white kids and black kids in Alabama would be able to hold hands and play together and stuff like that? Huh.”
Barack Obama, US President Elect Speech:
“This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.”
OR… “Folks, let’s get this show on the road. Let’s start finding some jobs for people. Peace and love. Ignore the haters. I think we can.”
President Bill Clinton, Lewinsky Scandal:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Oh Slick Willy. It can’t really get any worse than that. But you will always be my boy.
As everyone else has mentioned, Williams is tough. Yet, it is important to know the origins of rhetoric. Even more importantly, it is also pretty important to know the definition of rhetoric. I think I’ve always just assumed that I know what the word means, when in reality I did not ever put any thought into it. After reading through the text, my thoughts on rhetoric have been simultaneously cleared up and mixed up. It seems that every different generation, nation, religion, university and individual had something different to say about rhetoric. What were you all thinking? (Rhetorically speaking)
I found the Sophists vision of truth to be interesting. It’s all relative. Protagoras’ teaching kind of makes sense though. Things are real and true to us as long as they appear to be that way. Facts are facts until they no longer have a reason to be a fact. However, such beliefs can produce corrupt actions. The book lists examples such as people believing that the holocaust never happened or that Americans never landed on the moon. I guess everyone has his or her right to believe what he or she wants. Yet, in this sense the sophists viewpoints became a bit wishy washy to me.
I did, however, become drawn to Isocrates three necessary factors that make a good rhetorician. These include talent, instruction and practice. I also agree that talent is the most important. However, I believe that instructed and practiced writers/speakers can beat out neglected talent. In that sense, I believe that purpose and motivation should also be a key factor to successful rhetoricians.
I am personally very fascinated in religious rhetoric. I was intrigued and glad that Williams discussed the rhetorical views of St. Augustine, along with his religious views. To me, the Jewish faith is filled with a rich rhetorical history. Ancient rabbi’s and students used to memorize the Torah in its entirety. Most towns only had one copy of the torah that was usually located at the Temple. In this sense, oral speech and memorization play a major role in rhetorical development. Additionally, each ancient rabbi interpreted the Torah from a different perspective. The Bible was seen as an open ended book. When a student followed a certain rabbi, that student took up that specific rabbi’s yoke or vision. In some ways, this reflects Sophist ideas. But, maybe that’s a stretch.
If you look at the teachings in the New Testament of the Bible, most lessons and parables are geared directly toward a Jewish crowd. The text uses specific examples and imagery that every Jewish person would be immediately familiar with. This is because the Christian teachers and writers of that day were teaching and writing to a large Jewish audience. This shows how rhetoric can be used to persuade/engage certain groups of people. Augustine echoes this sentiment. Williams writes, “Augustine argued that rhetoric could be put to use in preaching and, more important, in interpreting the Bible.” Some Christians today have no idea what they are really reading when they open up the Bible. This is because they are not always aware of the ancient meanings beneath the rhetoric. After learning more traditions and beliefs of the ancient Jews, a person can accurately read the text through the proper rhetorical lens.
I am nowhere near an expert on religion, and I am sorry if I misrepresented anything in the past two paragraphs! If I did I would love to stand corrected. I find the rhetoric of religious teachers and writing to be so fascinating and influential. It was interesting to think more about it after reading William’s text.
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet:
“See how she leans her cheek upon her hand! O, that I were a glove upon that hand, That I might touch that cheek!
OR… “My girl is hot. I like how she moves. I wish my hand was on her cheeks, if you know what I mean.
Jesus, The Bible:
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
OR... “I’m God. Hand ‘em over.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream:
“I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”
OR…”I think I have a pretty good idea. Wouldn’t it would be nice if maybe one day white kids and black kids in Alabama would be able to hold hands and play together and stuff like that? Huh.”
Barack Obama, US President Elect Speech:
“This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.”
OR… “Folks, let’s get this show on the road. Let’s start finding some jobs for people. Peace and love. Ignore the haters. I think we can.”
President Bill Clinton, Lewinsky Scandal:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Oh Slick Willy. It can’t really get any worse than that. But you will always be my boy.
As everyone else has mentioned, Williams is tough. Yet, it is important to know the origins of rhetoric. Even more importantly, it is also pretty important to know the definition of rhetoric. I think I’ve always just assumed that I know what the word means, when in reality I did not ever put any thought into it. After reading through the text, my thoughts on rhetoric have been simultaneously cleared up and mixed up. It seems that every different generation, nation, religion, university and individual had something different to say about rhetoric. What were you all thinking? (Rhetorically speaking)
I found the Sophists vision of truth to be interesting. It’s all relative. Protagoras’ teaching kind of makes sense though. Things are real and true to us as long as they appear to be that way. Facts are facts until they no longer have a reason to be a fact. However, such beliefs can produce corrupt actions. The book lists examples such as people believing that the holocaust never happened or that Americans never landed on the moon. I guess everyone has his or her right to believe what he or she wants. Yet, in this sense the sophists viewpoints became a bit wishy washy to me.
I did, however, become drawn to Isocrates three necessary factors that make a good rhetorician. These include talent, instruction and practice. I also agree that talent is the most important. However, I believe that instructed and practiced writers/speakers can beat out neglected talent. In that sense, I believe that purpose and motivation should also be a key factor to successful rhetoricians.
I am personally very fascinated in religious rhetoric. I was intrigued and glad that Williams discussed the rhetorical views of St. Augustine, along with his religious views. To me, the Jewish faith is filled with a rich rhetorical history. Ancient rabbi’s and students used to memorize the Torah in its entirety. Most towns only had one copy of the torah that was usually located at the Temple. In this sense, oral speech and memorization play a major role in rhetorical development. Additionally, each ancient rabbi interpreted the Torah from a different perspective. The Bible was seen as an open ended book. When a student followed a certain rabbi, that student took up that specific rabbi’s yoke or vision. In some ways, this reflects Sophist ideas. But, maybe that’s a stretch.
If you look at the teachings in the New Testament of the Bible, most lessons and parables are geared directly toward a Jewish crowd. The text uses specific examples and imagery that every Jewish person would be immediately familiar with. This is because the Christian teachers and writers of that day were teaching and writing to a large Jewish audience. This shows how rhetoric can be used to persuade/engage certain groups of people. Augustine echoes this sentiment. Williams writes, “Augustine argued that rhetoric could be put to use in preaching and, more important, in interpreting the Bible.” Some Christians today have no idea what they are really reading when they open up the Bible. This is because they are not always aware of the ancient meanings beneath the rhetoric. After learning more traditions and beliefs of the ancient Jews, a person can accurately read the text through the proper rhetorical lens.
I am nowhere near an expert on religion, and I am sorry if I misrepresented anything in the past two paragraphs! If I did I would love to stand corrected. I find the rhetoric of religious teachers and writing to be so fascinating and influential. It was interesting to think more about it after reading William’s text.
Rhetoric Has Never Seemed More Overwhelming
Whew! Williams certainly gives his readers a lot of information to process. I have to say for starters that I found the history involved in the development of rhetoric itself to be interesting. I had never really considered the major connection between rhetoric and philosophy, or the many different definitions, purported origins, and uses of rhetoric. I have to confess, when I signed up for this course I didn’t give much in depth thought to the word “rhetoric.” I just thought, “Oh, a course that will teach me how to teach writing.” It’s an eye-opener to be introduced to how much history is behind that one word.
That being said….all of the history was a bit much for my poor concentration at times. I recognized familiar names, but found myself searching for the word “rhetoric” while reading about their battles, marriages and political takeovers. I can see how their personal and political history is tied to their influence in rhetoric or their use of it, but I felt too overloaded with information to see that connection at times, or to keep my focus on it.
For me, the connections were clearer with the three Sophists that were discussed than some of the later important figures. I was intrigued by these key points for each:
Protagorus – “Any argument for the relativity of truth and fact runs the risk of implicitly encouraging unscrupulous and unethical behavior” (11). I think when a lot of us think of rhetoric as used for persuasive methods we think of politicians (and what the hell, I’ll say it – corruption!). It makes you think about how dangerous words can be when used to sway the masses.
Gorgias – “He would argue a point vigorously in his demonstrations and then argue the opposite point just as vigorously…” (14). Reading this took me back to Elbow a little bit and when he suggested we play devil’s advocate with our writing. I think it’s a good strategy to use anytime you are delivering a speech or paper that involves a specific argument or point of view. By coming up with the arguments you might receive against it, you could discover some flaws in your own argument or questions you may have to prepare yourself to answer.
Isocrates – “Formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without ability…” (15). This quote brings up the whole ‘natural ability vs. acquired ability’ debate. Can someone who practices and practices writing poetry be as good or better than someone who has a natural gift for it but may not apply themselves?
Even though Peter Ramus boiled down rhetoric to style and delivery, it still seems a rather broad and controversial topic to me, particularly after absorbing this reading.
My questions are: After learning all the history that is behind rhetoric, what do you think is a good way to chisel it down and explain it to writers in a basic way? Do you personally feel that rhetoric is an art or a science….or both?
That being said….all of the history was a bit much for my poor concentration at times. I recognized familiar names, but found myself searching for the word “rhetoric” while reading about their battles, marriages and political takeovers. I can see how their personal and political history is tied to their influence in rhetoric or their use of it, but I felt too overloaded with information to see that connection at times, or to keep my focus on it.
For me, the connections were clearer with the three Sophists that were discussed than some of the later important figures. I was intrigued by these key points for each:
Protagorus – “Any argument for the relativity of truth and fact runs the risk of implicitly encouraging unscrupulous and unethical behavior” (11). I think when a lot of us think of rhetoric as used for persuasive methods we think of politicians (and what the hell, I’ll say it – corruption!). It makes you think about how dangerous words can be when used to sway the masses.
Gorgias – “He would argue a point vigorously in his demonstrations and then argue the opposite point just as vigorously…” (14). Reading this took me back to Elbow a little bit and when he suggested we play devil’s advocate with our writing. I think it’s a good strategy to use anytime you are delivering a speech or paper that involves a specific argument or point of view. By coming up with the arguments you might receive against it, you could discover some flaws in your own argument or questions you may have to prepare yourself to answer.
Isocrates – “Formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without ability…” (15). This quote brings up the whole ‘natural ability vs. acquired ability’ debate. Can someone who practices and practices writing poetry be as good or better than someone who has a natural gift for it but may not apply themselves?
Even though Peter Ramus boiled down rhetoric to style and delivery, it still seems a rather broad and controversial topic to me, particularly after absorbing this reading.
My questions are: After learning all the history that is behind rhetoric, what do you think is a good way to chisel it down and explain it to writers in a basic way? Do you personally feel that rhetoric is an art or a science….or both?
4 Questions
Wow! This is one of the most content-packed 40 pages I have ever read. I'm grateful we are not expected to summarize it, because I would have a really hard time.
Studying the lives of writing teachers throughout history raises some fascinating questions that are just as relevant today as centuries ago. I'll ask some of them and attempt a short answer to each.
QUESTION 1: Are talented writers born or made? The Sophists and Plato and Socrates thought you had to be born with writing talent -- and if you were not, there wasn't much you could do about it. I think, however, that while some people are born with more talent than others, most people can significantly improve their writing with practice and guidance.
QUESTION 2: What's more powerful: the written word or the spoken word? As a child of the early TV age, I hear the words of JFK and Martin Luther King ringing in my ears and answer "the spoken word." But I also love witty quotes and lines of great poetry. I do think that anyone who writes should read their work out loud in order to better edit their work.
QUESTION 3: What's more important: content or form? I think content: if what you're saying is boring or foolish, no amount of editing will be able to conceal the flaw. But if you have a good idea, even if it's clumsily written in the first draft, you should eventually be able to express it articulately.
QUESTION 4: Does the freedom of writers rely on the existence of a truly functioning democracy? You bet. Look what happened to poor Cicero at the hands of despots Anthony and Octavian. To tell the truth, I have never much worried about my writing being suppressed by the government, even in the extremely unlikely case that I become a famous writer. But McCarthyism, which happened here only some 50 years ago, put many writers out of work and some in prison. So I believe that anyone who cares about reading and writing should do whatever they can to preserve and participate in our democracy -- by voting, campaigning, writing letters to Congress, newspapers and political blogs, or volunteering in community activities.
Studying the lives of writing teachers throughout history raises some fascinating questions that are just as relevant today as centuries ago. I'll ask some of them and attempt a short answer to each.
QUESTION 1: Are talented writers born or made? The Sophists and Plato and Socrates thought you had to be born with writing talent -- and if you were not, there wasn't much you could do about it. I think, however, that while some people are born with more talent than others, most people can significantly improve their writing with practice and guidance.
QUESTION 2: What's more powerful: the written word or the spoken word? As a child of the early TV age, I hear the words of JFK and Martin Luther King ringing in my ears and answer "the spoken word." But I also love witty quotes and lines of great poetry. I do think that anyone who writes should read their work out loud in order to better edit their work.
QUESTION 3: What's more important: content or form? I think content: if what you're saying is boring or foolish, no amount of editing will be able to conceal the flaw. But if you have a good idea, even if it's clumsily written in the first draft, you should eventually be able to express it articulately.
QUESTION 4: Does the freedom of writers rely on the existence of a truly functioning democracy? You bet. Look what happened to poor Cicero at the hands of despots Anthony and Octavian. To tell the truth, I have never much worried about my writing being suppressed by the government, even in the extremely unlikely case that I become a famous writer. But McCarthyism, which happened here only some 50 years ago, put many writers out of work and some in prison. So I believe that anyone who cares about reading and writing should do whatever they can to preserve and participate in our democracy -- by voting, campaigning, writing letters to Congress, newspapers and political blogs, or volunteering in community activities.
Thoughts and many more questions
This week’s reading was awfully heavy for me, but I did find some interesting points to ponder. I’ve listed them here not as a coherent writing piece, but as a list of my thoughts while reading. Please, when reading, do not think that I am opposed to one political party or another. I am reflecting on how I see Williams’ chapter relating to today’s American society. As you will see, the reading gave me more questions than answers.
First, on page 5, Williams says Greek “rhetoric began to emerge when a shifting economic base effected changes in politics and education.” Funny how history repeats itself. While we are not establishing American society for the first time, we are certainly seeing a revision of American society every single day. We have grown up in this "new" era of American democracy, and have the privilege to fully participate in our government. However, most Americans choose not to participate in the government, or in the society. We saw this change in record numbers last year during the election, and regardless of your thoughts on the outcome, you have to admit that it has changed the United States. We are now seeing more people involved in what is going on. There is a new rhetorical shift; a shift towards ordinary people wanting to be heard. If the economic meltdown of last fall had not occurred, would the election have been so dramatic? Would there be so much passion and emotion and concern about health care reform? Would we have a congressman calling the president a liar, basically, to his face? Would we being hearing words like socialism or Marxism being used again? I think that Williams’ simple statement about the Greeks is happening right before our eyes, thousands of years later.
Second, on page 24, Williams talks about how the Romans banned rhetoric because it was seen as a “powerful tool for democratic change.” Yet again, history is repeating itself. We saw this last week when so many people were so vehemently opposed to our elected president taking to our school children. People were afraid that he was going to “brainwash” our young people. He was going to talk to them, and use this speech to get them to support his ideas on health care, but use the cover of education to be able to reach out to them. Parents would have no control of the message. The conservative right was afraid that this one speech was going to dramatically alter our children and the way they think. Personally, I think the protesters over-reacted. It was a simple speech that told kids that they have to be responsible for their education too. It is not a one-way street where teachers do all the work and students are expected to share no responsibility in the learning process. Will this speech make a dramatic shift in student learning? Probably not. But the idea of the speech made a dramatic shift in the ideas of democracy here in the United States.
Finally, about how the Harvard system has failed (p.41), we seem to have a mode of operation in the United States that if it isn’t broken too badly, it doesn’t need to be fixed. We saw this with the collapse of the auto industry and the banking system. We knew there were problems, but they, individually, weren’t big enough problems to warrant intensive scrutiny or change. Then, the bottom fell out, and now we are making changes. Is this what has to happen to our education system? Do we have to fall all the way down and hit bottom before we as a country are willing to admit that change in the education system needs to happen? What will it take to focus on how we train teachers? What needs to change in our colleges and universities to be able to have great teachers coming out prepared and ready to meet the needs of our children? Why are we, as a society, less concerned with who is teaching our children than we are about what is happening in Hollywood? What does it say when we have teachers who barely graduated from college with a C-grade point average teaching our children? We are okay with the idea that mediocre teachers are responsible for educating our children. Why don’t we expect our children to be taught by the best, and then, why don’t we put a higher value on education and the teachers and administrators trusted to educate our children? Why are we less concerned with the changes that should be made in our courses of study at all education levels than we are about the changes in the fall television line-up? To me, we need a shift in rhetoric to start emphasizing the need for some education reform, reform that will really benefit our children rather than sticking to what doesn’t work.
First, on page 5, Williams says Greek “rhetoric began to emerge when a shifting economic base effected changes in politics and education.” Funny how history repeats itself. While we are not establishing American society for the first time, we are certainly seeing a revision of American society every single day. We have grown up in this "new" era of American democracy, and have the privilege to fully participate in our government. However, most Americans choose not to participate in the government, or in the society. We saw this change in record numbers last year during the election, and regardless of your thoughts on the outcome, you have to admit that it has changed the United States. We are now seeing more people involved in what is going on. There is a new rhetorical shift; a shift towards ordinary people wanting to be heard. If the economic meltdown of last fall had not occurred, would the election have been so dramatic? Would there be so much passion and emotion and concern about health care reform? Would we have a congressman calling the president a liar, basically, to his face? Would we being hearing words like socialism or Marxism being used again? I think that Williams’ simple statement about the Greeks is happening right before our eyes, thousands of years later.
Second, on page 24, Williams talks about how the Romans banned rhetoric because it was seen as a “powerful tool for democratic change.” Yet again, history is repeating itself. We saw this last week when so many people were so vehemently opposed to our elected president taking to our school children. People were afraid that he was going to “brainwash” our young people. He was going to talk to them, and use this speech to get them to support his ideas on health care, but use the cover of education to be able to reach out to them. Parents would have no control of the message. The conservative right was afraid that this one speech was going to dramatically alter our children and the way they think. Personally, I think the protesters over-reacted. It was a simple speech that told kids that they have to be responsible for their education too. It is not a one-way street where teachers do all the work and students are expected to share no responsibility in the learning process. Will this speech make a dramatic shift in student learning? Probably not. But the idea of the speech made a dramatic shift in the ideas of democracy here in the United States.
Finally, about how the Harvard system has failed (p.41), we seem to have a mode of operation in the United States that if it isn’t broken too badly, it doesn’t need to be fixed. We saw this with the collapse of the auto industry and the banking system. We knew there were problems, but they, individually, weren’t big enough problems to warrant intensive scrutiny or change. Then, the bottom fell out, and now we are making changes. Is this what has to happen to our education system? Do we have to fall all the way down and hit bottom before we as a country are willing to admit that change in the education system needs to happen? What will it take to focus on how we train teachers? What needs to change in our colleges and universities to be able to have great teachers coming out prepared and ready to meet the needs of our children? Why are we, as a society, less concerned with who is teaching our children than we are about what is happening in Hollywood? What does it say when we have teachers who barely graduated from college with a C-grade point average teaching our children? We are okay with the idea that mediocre teachers are responsible for educating our children. Why don’t we expect our children to be taught by the best, and then, why don’t we put a higher value on education and the teachers and administrators trusted to educate our children? Why are we less concerned with the changes that should be made in our courses of study at all education levels than we are about the changes in the fall television line-up? To me, we need a shift in rhetoric to start emphasizing the need for some education reform, reform that will really benefit our children rather than sticking to what doesn’t work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)