-->
what is rhetoric? what is the history and theory of rhetoric? What do
you want to do with the content from this course?
I can still hear my professor Dr. Heard from the University of North Texas tell me:
"Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. It is the act of arguing and arguing well; and for rhetoricians like Socrates, it's not necessarily what you say, but rather how you say it."
The history of rhetoric comes from the Ancient Greeks, you know, the boys: Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. These are the gentlemen who made rhetoric, or the art of persuasion essentially a game, if you will. In many instances Plato details conversations between Socrates and younger boys (or trainees) where Socrates will teach the younger male how to argue, how to persuade, and in some cases he does it with a sense of humor.
The theory of rhetoric is a bit more complicated to answer. I would argue, because of my previous professor, that the major theory or idea behind rhetoric is not necessarily what you say, but how you say it. That a person can argue that the sky is purple, and his audience will believe him, not necessarily based on scientific facts, physics, statistics, or mathematical equations the presenter might throw out to his audience, but rather it is through his word choice, through his tone of voice, through his presentation of the argument. It's analyzing the author's intentions, bodily movements, word choice, and it can even come down to clothing choice. I mean imagine this, if you're a presidential candidate are you going to wear a backwards baseball cap, blue jeans, sneakers, and a Nirvana t-shirt? No, you're going to wear a suit and tie. Your shoes will be polished, your clothes will be pressed neatly, and your overall physical appearance will look presentable and professional. When speaking, are you going to use words like "yeah, um, I dunno, sure, probably, fixin' to, etc." or will you use more aesthetically pleasing and erudite words? This all stems from the theory of rhetoric given to us from the classics. At least that's my opinion in terms of classical theory. While I'm sure it differs in composition, the foundational principals remain. I wouldn't submit a final research paper unedited, with short hand text, and lacking formality, incorrect grammar and syntax. I also don't present at conferences or attend class in clothes that I wear mowing the lawn.
With the content of this course, I would like many have already said in our email chain, learn more about integrating digital writing in the classroom. As I sit here typing this I realize that it is my blog, it's informal writing, but is it? I'm going to go back and reread and edit this post, but many new writers wouldn't. So I guess one thing I'd be interested in learning is teaching how to cross the boundaries between formal and informal writing. I won't respond to a text message that uses "u" or "r" or even "lol". As a high school teacher, I wouldn't accept final papers with contractions in them because I learned while writing my Masters thesis that I was forbidden from using contractions. So really my question is, what constitutes formal writing versus informal writing? As you can see here, I've used contractions throughout this blog post. But I have a generally solid command of grammar and syntax. So which would this blog post be considered: formal or informal?
In addition to integrating digital writing in the classroom, I would also like to learn how to persuade my students away from laptops and digital writing. I recently read an article from the Huffington Post about a study that showed people who took notes by hand had a significantly higher content retention rate than those who took notes digitally. Here's the article I read: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/ink-on-paper-some-notes-o_b_4681440.html)
Lastly, one question I was always faced with as a high school teacher: "Why can't I just Google it?" This question was asked in regards to literally EVERYTHING, from spelling of words, to studying vocabulary, to doing research. Heck, it was even asked when I asked my students to write a summary of the novel we had just read. I'd really like to figure out a way to engage my students in the learning, exploring, investigating, wondering, and creating process that doesn't necessarily involve such a heavily, almost annoying, reliance on Google.
I feel like we all have those professors that drilled certain concepts into our heads (especially if we had them, say, every semester). I still remember Dr. Jorgensen's classic example on logical fallacies, which she would inevitably write on the board at some point in every class: "Men are pigs. Pete is a man. Therefore, Pete is a pig." (I should point out - Pete is her husband, and a great guy at that!)
ReplyDeleteI think you make a few really good, relevant points about establishing ethos as an author. It's so easy to rely on your writing to carry your credibility, but realistically we need to consider things like clothing choice, body language, and spoken tone - perhaps that's why I dislike presenting at conferences so much!
You bring up interesting points about formal versus informal writing. I prescribe to a more descriptivist idea of writing. I think that formalities like, say, omitting ALL contractions in a genre of text, are outdated and silly. Language is colloquial. It evolves. It twists and bends and sometimes comes right back to where it started and sometimes ends up in a completely novel place. I agree that texts that use shorthand can get annoying, but it's easier to accept when you think of shorthand as another form of dialect. (Crazy, right?!) As writers, we establish our texts in context. In the context of a quick text to a friend - an "lol" or "r u there yet?" isn't really so bad. (And if I completely swore off all those who use it, I'd never text my mother again.)
As to dissuading your students from digital writing: Ah! I'm a tech writer! Digital writing is becoming a bigger and bigger part of what we do. I would say rather than calling off digital writing altogether, find a balance. I've seen articles about the content retention rate that you posted, and while I don't doubt their research, my response is always this: We all have different learning styles. Rather than forcing students to conform to one learning style, let them experiment and find their own. For me, it's audio/oral. (Weird, right?) The BEST way I remember something is to hear it out loud and to talk about it. Taking notes by hand doesn't work for me - I'm too slow. My computer is used for everything. And then when it's time to study, I compile those digital notes I've already taken, amass them into a monster study sheet, print, and conduct study sessions with friends. That is, without a doubt, what works best for me. Give your students a chance to find their study "thing"! :)
You raised some really good points on rhetoric with this post, especially with your saying that describing the theory of rhetoric is more complicated than just defining it. But I think that it’s so complicated because we all have our own ideas and theories of rhetoric. I became concerned when I thought I didn’t explain what the theory of rhetoric was in my blog, but I realized later that I kind of did when I talked about how rhetoric is when you write an opinion and back it up with enough evidence to make your audience agree with you. Like you said, it’s a question of how you say something each individual portion of your audience. In that respect, rhetoric comes off like acting; You have to be leveled with your audience, and you have to sound believable enough for the audience in the house to get engaged in the ideas and theories that you’re pitching. If you don’t deliver the message well enough, your audience will look at their watches and wonder when the boring performance will ever end. The article that you uploaded raises another good point: that writing on a piece of paper helps you at least memorize notes a little more than typing something down. That’s why I usually write notes with a pen or pencil instead of my Macbook, which I reserve for formal papers. Typing something down, though neater than handwritten notes, can feel mechanical to me and will leave me a bit more prone to distractions that linger on my desktop. So I can understand why you would want to limit digital reliance with your students, because you don’t want to distract them as easily.
ReplyDeleteI like how you define Rhetorical Theory with what NOT to do as much as what TO do. Sometimes, that's really the only way we can explain or define something--by what it isn't instead of what it is.
ReplyDeleteI also like your illustration about how confusing it can be to categorize conventions used digital writing. I'm noticing that even when it comes to comments, there are certain patterns that we follow instinctively. For example, all of these comments are complimenting something you said and then engaging in a deeper conversation of it. Most of my comments to these blogs will probably follow the same format. Why is that?
Is it that we were taught to respond in this way? Is it that we are all copying each other without even knowing it? It is that we feel we have to conform to a certain convention because that is how it's always been done? I'm not really sure, just like I'm not really sure what type of Rhetoric I should use in digital writing, like you.
Lastly, I, like you, have been asked by my students to just "Google" whatever information is needed. I, instead, have actually used Google in my classroom to encourage exploration beyond what is available in the classroom. I completely understand your frustration when it came to using Google for everything, and that's certainly not what I did, but I came to realize eventually that students were born into this environment where they immediately have to have whatever they want, like NOW (I know there's a specific term for it, but I can't think of it right now). I tried to level with my students and used it to my advantage. It's refreshing to see that we shared the same frustrations, yet responded in different ways. It reminds me that there is not one teacher who is the same. :)
Great comments and feedback about your ideas here. I want to encourage you to respond. Can you bring in ideas about composition instruction through connecting it to secondary education? What have been the differences that you've seen?
ReplyDelete