Epistemology at its Finest—The Discussions, Insights and Ramblings of a Non-Rhetorical Theorist

Having three different minds consult and influence the information we have already stored is wonderful in the sense that it exercises the brain to distort the facts and have it break down into a different form to look at from a new angle. For our schema, Angela first drew out on a white board a bubble map of concepts that we all thought were important from the readings while Amanda made it possible to have a second draft of our schema in a Microsoft Publisher document. Afterwards, we all tried to see how each topic was connected to each other—even if it was semi-related or a stretch, and it was through this process that I realized that there is never really an old or new version of something. In the end, it’s the same concept that has been modified to fit the audience that is now absorbing the information: “…the worth of an argumentation is not measured solely by its efficacy but also by the quality of the audience at which it is aimed” (Perelman 1087). 

Since not everyone in the world is knowing of what rhetorical theory is, it might be more applicable to them to distinguish between old and new rhetoric, but for those who are aware of it and have been able to be a part of it should be aware of how exactly it is the same, but also how it has become applicable to the time that is now. This brings me to talk about texts in the way Barthes talks about texts. In his piece, “The Death of the Author”, he describes how though a text is “a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture” (Barthes 146), and that the author is abandoned from it because of the audience. They take “the claim to decipher a text” (147) and give it its own meaning, which is much of what Perelman has done with Aristotle, Cicero and others, and what I am doing to all. Texts and their meaning can be shifted, molded and manipulated into any form the “artist”, orator, rhetor or communication person wants to be able to prove a point. Barthes, however, also mentions that “the reader is without history…he is simply someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted” (148). He is not undermining the reader’s influence in literature in general (he “kills” the author and glorifies the reader, actually), but he is reminding the reader that they have only so much knowledge about the topic they are interested in. The author, artist, orator figure has more knowledge than the reader and is able to inform the right audience the information that they seek.

Aristotle’s and Cicero’s concepts of rhetoric, “the art of persuasion” and “the orator’s purpose... to instruct, to move and to please” (Perelman 1077) are a few of the topics that make up the “stylistic tradition of rhetoric” (1078). Nehamas and Woodruff, in an introduction to Plato’s Phaedrus, bring up an important point that was key in what Perelman calls the “old rhetoric”: “only those who know precisely the truth about a subject can lead their audience…away from their own beliefs and toward the conclusion they want by presenting arguments that divert from the truth as little as possible” (p. xxxi). And though Perelman believes his rhetoric to be newer and stray from the old, which he also describes as “an art of style” (p. 1079), his ideas of argumentation seem to not stray that far from this point. When describing quasi-logical arguments, Perelman gives the example of language, or rather, specific terms that give have meaning to the audience: “When I say ‘business is business’…those hearing the words give preferences…to its significant character” (Perelman 1091). He goes on to say that they will never stray from its meaning because it is something they are accustomed to, based on the society they are in. In this case, the orator has to be responsible enough to be aware that the phrase he uses is not missed by the audience he is presenting to, in which case, he needs to persuade the audience, or please them by staying in the loop with them. In other words, finding the common ground within the audience can help draw them away from what they are feeling, what they believe in, based on the truth of what keeps their community together. 

I always thought art was as simple as an easel and a paintbrush or pen and pencil, and successful art to be the products of those who were actually good with those materials. I did not expect to find out that everything, in its own context, is considered an art, which in turn made this exploratory just that—an expedition of finding knowledge in unconventional ways. 

I found out through this class and through Perelman’s reading that rhetorical theory is an art of its own—with more and more people inputting their knowledge to broaden the spectrum, and even I, a non-rhetorical theorist, can make a proclamation or change in this difficult but fulfilling art form. This, as a whole, may not make much sense and may even be a stretch. After all, I am not a rhetorical theorist, but I am a reader, therefore I am entitled to an interpretation of the texts I have read, and am able to become an orator through the knowledges and truths I have come to know. I can now make my own intricate web of things I learn, or things I take to heart, from the readings in the future and maybe, I can even proudly display my masterpiece. In regards to the group project, I believe what we created was a masterpiece in its own sense. We all came together to present what we chose to take away from what we were presented, only to give it back to the world so they can do what they will with it. I believe that there is just rhetoric, no new or old, in which the guidelines depend on the artist and what it is they want to display, and to whom they want to display it to. Please feel free to argue or share any thoughts you might have on this.