Zoom: Across Archives 'n Ngrams

My group’s approach to “Across Archives ‘n Ngrams” could be compared to a camera’s focus options. While the purpose of the assignment was to consider patterns using our chosen terms (to zoom out and examine terms across texts and over time), we honed in on the details of those terms. We focused carefully on the individual instances and patterns presented in the archival tools themselves, noting the local inconsistencies and surprises they revealed. We recognize that our close and deliberate analysis needed to take a big step backward.

To look at this:

In the larger scheme of this: 

(what do those little orange locations tell us about the term in this text and in the others?) 

To respond to Dr. Graban’s prompt, the archival tools addressed and illumined my understanding of the texts. My post will consider the use of perception and language, both as the basis for Locke’s theory of understanding and as guiding terms for Campbell’s “The Philosophy of Rhetoric.”

Re-Thinking the Nature of the Enlightenment: An Exercise in Self-Reflexivity

As our readings for this week suggest, the Enlightenment has been characterized as a time marked by greater attention to science, philosophy, sociology, and politics. Accordingly, philosophers of that era are often associated with the study of the physical world, the source(s) of knowledge, and psychological processes. As Bizzell and Herzberg state in their “Introduction” to the Enlightenment, “These vast social and intellectual changes inevitably affected the ways that language, communication, and rhetoric were understood during this crucial period” (791).  One of the ways in which Enlightenment thinking shaped rhetoric is by emphasizing the connection between language and epistemologies. Some argued that rhetoric clouded the truth with ornamented language, and accordingly, advocated for rhetoricians to use plain and direct language (792). As a result, many philosophers proposed “broad language reforms in an attempt to purify communication” (792). Additionally, with the Enlightenment came more attention to the psychological processes of perception and the faculties of the mind. Both of these concepts seem to have played a role in influencing John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” and George Campbell’s The Philosophy of Rhetoric.

Recontextualizing My Logic

I have to say, in a very not-formal manner, that I had so much fun working on this exploratory! It was 100% different from what I’ve always done to learn the concepts and ideas from readings, and work in group projects, but using these online tools to get a sense of what the readings have to offer using online tools was absolutely amazing and so, so cool. The tool that I resonated with the most was Alex’s catalogue of electronic texts; when we filled out the chart in our google doc, I was trying to hide the amount I wanted to bounce in my seat because I was drawing so many comparisons and making connections between the readings and within each term that we explored. If I succeeded, you’d have to ask my group members.

Enlightening the Enlightenment: Extending Three Texts through E-Exploration

The larger portion of our project, trying to transcribe the data we collected into meaningful results, had us going through some pretty odd leaps in logic—especially when it concerned mapping longterm results of the texts and authors. Amanda keyed on some pretty sharp ideas about how Ngrams showed the texts moving through the actual Enlightenment, noting the shifts of each after their original publication and how most, especially Hume’s Human Understanding, took dramatic falls very shortly after publication. These shifts showed how long it took for the texts to exert any kind of influence.

With Imperfect Tools: Language, Learning, and the Sharing of Knowledge in the Enlightenment Era

The triad of tasks presented this week included exploration of Enlightenment texts with three tools: the online concordance at ALEX, a digital archive, and finally Google N-Gram viewer. Rob and I selected the terms perception, learning, writing, language, and philosophy, then worked through each tool individually to independently identify patterns we noticed. During our presentation, linked here (http://prezi.com/2cnle8ntx5an/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy), we discussed surprising trends and connections between all of the words and their corresponding ideas.  Close reading through ALEX revealed the frequency, context, and location of each term, and the concordance did so for Campbell in slightly less accessible ways. Personally, I found it odd that writing did not appear more frequently considering the heavy use of language and despite the fact that both Locke and Campbell were writing; for the most part, writing was confined to an act or was used in reference to other writers. For this blog post, I’d like to focus specifically on learning and language, rather than on the set as a whole, but in doing so, I may likely refer to the other terms. With this approach, I hope to grapple with the possible relationship between the two in the context of the Enlightenment.

Reflecting on "Logic and Audience" and Preparation for Next Week

Folks,

I genuinely commend you on many of the realizations you gleaned from our first exploratory. There are several reasons why I asked you to schematize The New Rhetoric, but one principal reason is to remind us that any claim we make about a figure, text, or theory -- whether revisionist or not -- is itself always "in respect to," and that any re/reading of these treatises requires our being willing to let the text speak on its own terms as well as through the terms of specific secondary scholarship or primary/secondary histories with which we identify. By the same token, any intervention we wish to make into theories of argument is both a revisionist reading and a critical reflection on our own reading apparatus.

Mapping a Web of (Dis)Connections:Reflections on Creating a New Rhetoric Schema

In creating our outline for the schema, Michael and I first sought to find the common factors we both resonated with in New Rhetoric. We gravitated towards different aspects, and it was interesting to see how we built upon each other's concepts. This was a unique experience in that we were attempting to make the textual presentation into a visual one while also conceptualizing items we would not naturally link with other elements. Michael and I decided to create a web (or as I originally visualized it, a flat map that spread indefinitely on a digital plane) linking key components of New Rhetoric to each other in order to discover connections. To me, the lack of certain connections I thought were evident was the most striking aspect of this.

Slightly Confused Schema of Orator/Audience

This weeks readings were a bit difficult for me to grasp so, the exploratory helped in making some of the more complex ideas and themes more concrete. There was quite a lot to unpack and we did our best to makes sense of how all of the ideas worked together. I believe that out schema reflects our understanding, and possibly our confusion, of how major concepts worked in relation with one another (i.e. Argumentation, the role of the orator, and Audience). Our process was three prong as we first identified major concepts through online discussion, then met in person and created both a scattered marker board make up and a digital representation. Through the digital representation we were able to connect concepts in how they were related (either loosely or more concrete). Personally, I work better visually so having a board to write down multiple thoughts was extremely helpful.

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). 

Schema as a Generative Tool: Connecting Concepts with the New Rhetoric

Katelyn and I worked together to develop a schema for Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of rhetorical argumentation. Creating the schema was no small task. Although I like mapping ideas and key concepts and find visual representations facilitate my learning, I often struggle to move those representations beyond the scope of an outline. A schema is, of course, more nuanced than that, and understandably more intellectually challenging. That being said, the result of developing a schema for Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of rhetorical argumentation was far more valuable than any reading outline could have been.  Katelyn and I met in person to decide on what concepts and terms we wanted to include on our schema and how we wanted to represent them. At first, we were largely pulling out key terms and definitions, but then our conversation evolved into larger questions and concepts, including “What is the new rhetoric and is it really new?,” “How Aristotelian is this theory in actuality?,” and “In what ways is  Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s understanding of audience and adherence change the scope of rhetoric?” As we thought about these concepts, Katelyn sketched a preliminary draft of our schema using pen and paper. After making some tweaks and collaboratively mapping other theorists onto our schema, I translated it into Prezi, a tool chosen for it’s open composing space, ability to edit collaboratively, and easy of sharing and circulating.  While composing the schema did not necessarily offer us answers to our questions, it did operate as a generative tool for thinking beyond what the text alone offers.

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.

Layers of Photoshop and Rhetorical Understandings: Reflecting on a “Spaceship” Schema

Creating the schema was both useful and frustrating. It brought to the surface the complexity of trying to understand how and why we think and operate in the world—through actions, through our values, through our conceptions of rhetoric, philosophy, conversation, and social practices. Even though the schema specifically addressed just “one” perspective of rhetoric (Perelman and Olbrects-Tyteca’s…but certainly influenced by others) , it was exceedingly difficult to depict the nuances of understanding and knowledge making. To help show this complexity, Kamila and I worked through a couple of different dimensions: 1) the concentric circles of the schema signified an outward explosion of thought and insight and 2) the layers for the various components—that can be disassembled and reassembled—show the connections and tensions over/through time.

A Rhetorical Ecology of Rhetorical Theory: There is No Absolute Truth—and That’s the Truth

Working on the schema for this week provided an opportunity to wrestle with Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of new rhetoric that required us to be inter-textual in our approach, which allowed for increased metacognitive understanding of the progression of rhetoric across both time and culture. What working through Perelamn, Olbrechts-Tyteca, Aristotle, Condit, and the author of Dissoi Logoi has really emphasized for me is Edbauer’s (Rice) rhetorical ecologies. In “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies, Edbauer “[rethinks] rhetorical publicness as a context of intersection,” and that is exactly what looking at the readings for this week has made me realize: the authors of rhetoric each exist within a fluid, rhetorical ecology, and they are all writing for different audiences and for different purposes that have altered over time and space.

Webs, Schemas, and Why I Wanted to Play with Legos

In working through this assignment, I found myself struggling to connect all of the moving parts, especially with a team. I have had the advantage, through years and years of Jesuit schooling, to have had a number of philosophy and theology classes that have dealt with the formal and informal value logic and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca used as the basis of their explorations into rhetoric. However, I did find myself often questioning my assumptions about this prior knowledge as I worked through the schema as Rob and I learned and taught each other. I also welcomed the invitation to play and to see how that could be productive. While our schema ended up different than I had originally anticipated, it was a product of negotiation, and it encapsulates our understandings and thinking. I look forward to seeing the rest.

Contradictions and Connections: The New Rhetoric, Culture, and Western Ideology

As one member of the only group of three, I think our process to the schema was a little different than everyone else’s, so I’d like to touch on that before going more in-depth about the schema’s effects on my current understanding of the rhetorical theories we have covered thus far. We started with a Google doc, which we populated with what we all thought were key terms and concepts. Thereafter, we met for several hours to discuss how our terms were related to one another and to other readings. Because Angela works best visually, she sketched a draft of our schema in dry erase markers on the wall of the study room while the three of us discussed the terms we chose and the relationships between them. While we were doing that, I used my technological skills to create an electronic version in Microsoft Publisher. While we were populating the one on the wall, I focused on typing terms, quotes, and citations. Afterwards, we all came together as a group behind the laptop and reproduced those connections in one form digitally. In some ways, I think we may have perhaps been acting out some parts of the rhetorical theories we have covered in class as we discussed them, acting as orators (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca), rhetors (Aristotle), readers (Barthes), or maybe even communication people (Asante) on a microcosmic level, drawing on relative truths (or our perceptions of them) to generate a visual representation of how we experienced Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s new rhetoric as we read it. I also almost feel like there were elements of Afrocentrism in it, as we all sought to share communication without privileging one skill set or approach over another.

Reflecting on "Authorship and Influence" and Building Your Own Chronology

Dear All,

In reflecting on last class I realize you covered quite a lot of ground in terms of finding new ways of inquiring into the "Authorship and Influence" conversation.

For example, by examining the central role of the "Okyeame/communication person" in Molefi Asante's Afrocentric communication theory, you have enabled us to ask a different set of questions about Plato's "speech-writer" and Aristotle's "rhetor":

• What integrative processes could these characters have facilitated (if any) in Plato's and Aristotle's theories?  
• What were their most critical debates about the nature of society?
• What are the possibilities for meta-commentary in The Phaedrus or On Rhetoric (i.e., is it possible that Plato's "speech-writer" and Aristotle's "rhetor" might play the role of meta-commentator in their respective texts)? 
• What are the ways in which we might read The Phaedrus or Rhetoric as nationalistic projects?

Recap of "Looking Historically at Rhetorical Theory" and Preparation for "Authorship and Influence"

Dear All,

As promised, I am pasting here a snapshot of yesterday's board, reflecting our quick but engaged discussion of how Vatz and Biesecker proposed that we might complicate Bitzer's theory of "rhetorical situation." From my vantage point, the most interesting realizations occurred in your own notes and/or in our small and large-group discussions; however, this image may help you to remember our framework.

[photo credit A. May -- click to enlarge]

Welcome to the course!

Dear All,

Welcome to ENG 5028 for the Fall 2016 semester. I look forward to greeting you next week! 

Because our seminar was scheduled once weekly on a Thursday, we’ll need to get started with discussion during our first class meeting. Please purchase, rent, or borrow our required course text (Bizzell/Herzberg The Rhetorical Tradition, 2nd ed) as soon as you are able, and complete the following assignment for our first meeting (on September 1, 2016):

Of the following three articles (located in our Course Library), I’ll ask you to read two: Bitzer and either Vatz or Biesecker. 

• Biesecker, Barbara. “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Difference.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 22.2 (1989): 110-130. 
• Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation” Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.1 (Jan 1968): 1-14 
• Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation” Philosophy & Rhetoric 6.3 (Summer 1973): 154-161.

The two articles you select will present, take up, and begin to disrupt what has become a dominant idea underlying rhetorical theory in the late twentieth century: the rhetorical situation. 

As I am sending you into this reading with very little context, you might annotate for the following: 

1. What do you understand with certainty  about the subject(s) being discussed? 
2. What do you not understand at all? 
3. If you reflect on the historical conversation represented by your two articles, you will likely notice that—from Bitzer to Biesecker, or from Bitzer to Vatz—much theoretical ground has shifted. Take note of any shifts. From your vantage point as a reader, what has changed between your two articles, according to the claims the writers make? Why do Vatz and Biesecker think “rhetorical situation” is such a worthy topic to revisit, respond to, or interrogate?
   

In addition to those two articles, please read any 5 pages in Bizzell and Herzberg’s “General Introduction” (pages 1-16 of The Rhetorical Tradition anthology), and be ready to discuss at least 5 things you notice about how Bizzell and Herzberg have organized the anthology, the field, and the topics. You are welcome and encouraged to read the entire introduction, but I think you’ll be able to notice quite a bit based on your 5 selected pages.

Looking forward to our first discussion,
-Dr. Graban