"Rhetoric is concerned with the state of Babel after the Fall."
(Burke, in B&H, p. 1327)
I find myself very drawn to Burke's statement as we try to sort out the "who's on first," "what's on second" characteristics of rhetoric. Although each era we have discussed has added its own twist and emphasis to the foundations of classical rhetoric, I love that the 20th century adds the concept on context. All of the rhetoricians we have read deal with audience to some degree--some, like Cicero, with more fervency than others. But, I believe that Burke's concepts of consubstantiality and identification introduce the importance of relationships.
This idea of consubstantiality is important because it forces us to recognize that "we have in common certain substances including physical embodiment, common aspirations, and language itself" (Herrick, p. 224). These commonalities lead us to compare (and contrast) who we are and what we think and measure those judgments against others in our own communities and cultures. Burke labels this desire to bridge the gap as identification. Seems simple enough, but why do we feel the need to identify, to bring our aspirations more in line with others? Because we're different. Something about us as individuals, groups, and cultures sets us apart from others. So rhetoric becomes the tool we use to deal with people, groups, or ideas with which we may be at odds.
I've been mulling this idea over, trying to place it in the context of a classroom. Initially, I was thinking in terms of an "us" versus "them," "professors" versus "students" dialectic. But in reality, I believe what we have is an archipelago of islands--lots of individuals with different backgrounds, aspirations, and languages (whether formal second language or informal social dialect) loosely grouped by the confines of the four classroom walls. Part of the difficulty we have as instructors is creating, modeling, portraying an identity that will motivate students to want to emulate what the academic environment has to offer. In Herrick, Burke states, "You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your was with his" (p. 223). The classroom can be perceived as its own culture where dialogic exchange creates a cooperative environment--a place where words can act as "bridges" between instructors and students (Bakhtin paraphrased, Herrick, p. 222).
How about the idea that teachers also are learners, and students also are teachers? I spend a lot of time early in each semester trying to build a classroom community, with the idea that students who feel connected to each other will learn more, and better, than a room full of strangers breathing the same air. I think there does have to be more in play than just physical (or virtual) space. I think that students need to find the common ground with each other, and with the instructor, and vice versa, before a classroom experience can be particularly meaningful, or memorable. This is also why I think our country has a feeling of chaos right now, because in all of our effort to sort each other into Democrats and Republicans we have lost sight that we all are Americans, sharing this wonderful space, as part of the greatest democratic experiment in human history, and it will be a monumental shame to screw it all up, because of divisive rhetoric splitting us into arbitrary symbols such as reds and blues (when all of us are mixed anyway, depending on the issue, or maybe even the time of day).
ReplyDeleteDeb, You said, "Burke labels this desire to bridge the gap as identification. Seems simple enough, but why do we feel the need to identify, to bring our aspirations more in line with others? Because we're different. Something about us as individuals, groups, and cultures sets us apart from others. So rhetoric becomes the tool we use to deal with people, groups, or ideas with which we may be at odds." How do you think this plays into the idea of the universal audience? We are all different. This is clearly admitted, yet we are supposed to find arguments that appeal to all of us.
ReplyDeleteBrett makes a good point about the learning roles reversing in the classroom. I suppose I never thought about the role of rhetoric in how these roles shift. Dialogic as cooperative--I like that. Reminds me of how Wendy Bishop used to give us writing prompts in article and essay workshop at FSU and actually write as the class wrote. Discussion usually led with her reading her work. Symbolically, I realized that she was teaching us so much about teaching in those moments. How persuasive too! The teacher thought the prompt valuable enough to do the work. I wonder if we did that in FY classes how students would react?
ReplyDelete