Spaceship Schema: Evolving Rhetorical Frameworks

My brain is swimming in rhetorical theory and, at this point, readings are arguing, critiquing, and blurring with one another. Through this project, Jessi and I re-envisioned concepts (large and small) from this week’s readings and others in visual form. Both of us have experience working with visual and digital texts, so I feel like we approached this project with enthusiasm. Our schema attempts to tap into the core of these scholarly texts and the idea that the conversations build upon one another in layers – sometimes cleanly, sometimes disruptively.

Comically titled “Spaceship Schema,” our visual attempts to capture the intersections of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Perelman/Olbrecht-Tyteca’s The New Rhetoric, and Condit’s “Prolegomenon to a New Rhetoric,” among others. The schema’s prominent circular design depicts how each text establishes and builds upon rhetoric’s conversations, categories, and critical climates. Our circular visualization in the following order:

1. Classical Influences
2. Ramus’ Blockade
3. Basis of Agreement (or Premises)
4. Rhetor Presence
5. Web of Arguments

Breaking the clean order of our circle, we include a cone of contemporary criticisms and gaps, highlighting questions and phrases raised in Condit’s “Prolegomenon to a New Rhetoric.” We also included places where feminist and afrocentric critiques are notably absent from Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory. Extending from the cone to the space outside of the circular visual, the critical elements were purposely designed to disturb the clean lines (or binaries) The New Rhetoric formulates. 

Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca’s work classifies contemporary rhetoric in the interest of creating a system of value judgments which could serve as the basis for legal philosophy (1372). To achieve this goal, the authors frame and critique the evolution of rhetorical argument. Aristotle’s categories of rhetoric and dialectic (among others such as Cicero, Quintillian, and St. Augustine) provide a foundation for Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theoretical outline. The second layer focuses on Ramus interpretation—and disruption, or blockade—of classical rhetorical theory. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note Ramus’ classification of rhetoric was diminished to verbal aesthetics or style, and their theory aims to “set out to 'revive' rhetoric and link it once again to philosophy” (1373). In other words, this layer represents the rhetorical conversations, or exigency, that led to the authors’ response.

The subsequent three layers focus specifically on The New Rhetoric and the categories Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca considered central to the practice of logical argumentation. Spaceship Schema organizes these categories according to the authors’ chronology. The third layer, or the basis of agreement (or premises), considers the broad terms that would appeal to an audience. Solid lines separate the terms because the orator selects those that would best frame the argument. The fourth layer, or rhetor presence, relies on rhetorical figures and literary techniques to create an image of “things that are not immediately present” (1395). Similarly, the presentation of reality (which we consider the starting point for this layer) is comprised of the selection of elements, literary techniques, and language that accounts for “classifications and valuations implicit in the audience’s acceptance” (1395). 

The critical elements represent a portion of the contemporary climate surrounding The New Rhetoric, from Dearin (feminist critique) to Asante (afrocentric critique). Equally, Condit’s critique of The New Rhetoric was important, specifically her note of pathos’ understated yet critical role in rhetorical oratory. Condit's critique reminded me, in some ways, of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. The introduction noted Aristotle preferred logos-driven appeals but he understood the power of pathos in audience response. However, Condit found The New Rhetoric dismissive of this aspect of the discipline. 

In sum, our circular visual portrays sections of this week’s readings as layers of an ongoing conversation but our schema also accounts for the disruptions, critiques, and gaps. In creating our schema, we tried to include subtle visual elements to illustrate a term's meaning. This is evident in layer 3's depiction of concrete values (a flag to depict one's country) and abstract values (a scale to depict justice), as well as layer 5's dissociation of ideas. Dissociation of ideas was written with purposeful disconnects to indicate the orator’s role in establishing philosophical connections, or pairs, for an audience. Opportunities such as these are one of the reasons I enjoy working with graphics. These small design decisions were made with our particular audience (classmates, Dr. Graban) in mind, aimed to clarify the term and, hopefully, provide a memorable visual.

Also, this draft was the inspiration for our title: