Furgeson, Missouri

Foucault, in “The Order of Discourse”, tells us that he believes that there are “societies of discourse” where an argument is made, however, it’s difficult for one to understand the argument without knowing the circumstances around the argument, an idea that he calls “doctrines”. I believe this is telling of all of the conflict that is happening around Ferguson, Missouri.

For the protesters and certain other people, it seems unreasonable for a police officer to use a deadly weapon against an unarmed person, even in self-defense. This, added to the idea that has been portrayed in the popular media of police officers not needing to resort to such extreme means to “get their man” in television shows and movies, makes it seem that Darren Wilson used excessive force to subdue his attacker. This set of ideas and beliefs help to shape people’s perception of the incident, what Foucault would call “doctrine”.

On the other hand, police officers, and other citizens who routinely carry firearms for self-defense that are trained in reasonable uses of force in accordance with existing laws, understand a different doctrine. Their doctrine tells them that deadly force that is used as a last resort when all other means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed, is an appropriate response to an attacker that causes the victim to believe that his or her life, or the lives of others, is in immediate danger.

The difference between the two doctrines are what I believe is currently causing strife in Ferguson, Missouri. In addition to the above listed basic constructs, there are pre-conceived notions that people have in addition to the basic crowd ideas that are listed above that continue to compound the situation.

Modern Rhetoric and Bakhtin

In reading the introduction to the piece, the authors of our textbook state that early into the 20^th century, rhetoric had fallen into relative obscurity, that modern rhetoric at the time became overshadowed by modern sciences, since rhetoric was not as objective as those subjects. When you think about some of the events of the early 20^th century, this makes complete sense. In the early 20^th century, and especially during the industrial revolution, many people across the United States and the industrialized world were living in an age where emerging technologies that would be born out of the new sciences were being realized. At this point in our history, many people had fully embraced technology, science, and modernism in such a fashion that sought to leave patterns of thought that existed pre-industrial revolution behind.

                The authors of our textbook then state that it was not until later in the 20^th century that rhetoric became “rediscovered”. During this time period, may authors that wrote about rhetoric wrote about the subject from a “discovery” standpoint, and sought to find a place for rhetoric amongst the already-established sciences. Things like introductory level college writing courses sought to increase the prevalence of rhetorical writing. Gradually, rhetoric was slowly finding its way back into the mainstream as something between a recognized science and an art.

                Bakhtin, one of the promoters of rhetoric in the 20^th century, wrote several pieces on the subject. One of his pieces, “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language”, re-introduced rhetoric from a collective standpoint. In his dialogue about verbal speech, Bakhtin stated that any utterance that a person makes in a discussion on a subject is only a small part in a larger discourse about the topic. In addition to this concept, Bakhtin also re-introduces rhetoric as a stand-alone discipline, by defining is as a social construct that borrows from other disciplines such as psychology, but is unlike psychology because it is only interested in two subjects of psychology, instead of the entirety of the discipline.

                Another thing that Bakhtin wrote about was the meaning of language. Bakhtin stated that in language, the message was without meaning unless the message that was being conveyed had a theme. Without a theme, the communication would be useless. Bakhtin insisted that communication boiled down to an exchange of commonly understood themes. Bakhtin then went on to state that true understanding arises out of dialogue.

Thoughts about Whatley's "Elements of Rhetoric"

                In Richard Whatley’s “Elements of Rhetoric”, it appears that in the first section of the piece, entitled “Introduction”, Whatley seeks to take the age-old concept of rhetoric, and to give it a modern update so that it may seem more relevant in the era in which he lived. Of course, this subject was heavily screened by Whatley, who believed in a particular brand of rhetoric that was taken from several different rhetors over the history of rhetoric. Because of this preference, Whatley only cites the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintillian, Bacon, Campbell, and Blair. Whatley’s restatement of rhetoric places emphasis on discovery and arrangement, rules concerning emotions and persuasion, style, and elocution.

                In Whatley’s writings about discovery and arrangement, he stresses the selection of interesting topics that would stimulate the audience, and cautions against the usage of what he describes as “dried specimens”, which are subjects taken from a source other than the rhetor and that do not reflect the feelings of the rhetor. Whatley also emphasizes the need for a rhetor to express himself in a free and natural style that is appropriate for the medium.

                Whatley then goes on to address rules around persuasion, and rules for introduction of arguments. Whatley speaks about the use of testimony, commonplaces, cross-examinations, tradition, presumption, and predispositions of an audience.   

                Whatley, like many other rhetors before him, carry on the tradition of rhetorical speech and analysis, in this case, borrowing from the ancients and bringing forward content to refine it in such a way that would be relevant during his time.

John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"

John Locke’s “An essay concerning Human Understanding” seems to be a comprehensive argument cautioning people about the meaning of words in languages. From the beginning of the piece, Locke warns us that because of the inherent nature of words, words may not perfectly fit a particular situation, and because of the imperfect fit of words, the true meaning of the piece that is written or spoken would be lost.

                Locke gives us several ideas that seem to support his theory, the first one being that as we internalize thoughts, we will assign words to those thoughts in what we believe to be an appropriate categorization. This, Locke argues, can be flawed, in the sense that no two people think alike and that if he were to attempt to profess his thoughts to another person, the true meaning of the thoughts may be lost because of what is lost in communication.

                Another example that Locke gives us about the fallacies of human communication is that the words used to identify objects do not occur in nature, and that identifying words are fabrications of humans who interpret the new objects and name them. This can cause issues in the case of where a person can name something, however, the object is already named, and in assigning two or more names to the same thing can cause great confusion.

                One last example of the point that Locke was making was that if an explorer were to travel to a foreign land that has never been discovered. In this example, Locke explains that if an explorer were to travel to a never before seen land, the man might encounter exotic wildlife, that has never been seen before. Because the animal life has not yet been discovered, the explorer may begin to attempt to name the wildlife. The explorer will then most likely attempt to name the new animals after animals that the explorer already knows in his homeland. This is a biased conclusion, since many animals and insects may have little to anything in common with animals and insects that looks similar to it. Such “discoveries” may incorrectly evaluate animals, and may have far reaching consequences.

                Locke was explicit about his mistrust of words, and stressed the differences in how some people think certain things that cannot easily be turned into words. Failures to communicate, errors in interpreting information, and the failure to pass along accurate information fuel Locke’s arguments toward cautioning against the unquestioning use of words in our lives and showcases errors in communication that are born out of these misunderstandings.

Arrangement using Kairos

A point that the authors of the Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Studies book emphasize is that an item that the ancients all agreed on in rhetorical theory is the concept of arrangement. The ancients believed so strongly in the idea of arrangement, that they placed the importance of arrangement above all other items in rhetoric, save invention. Even a lay person would agree; if a lay person were to read a piece or hear a speech that is disjointed, doesn’t flow well, and would not present the facts in a logical order, then that person would be apt to dismiss it. The authors of our book go on to explain that this concept plays into kairos, and that kairos has both a temporal and spatial element behind it. I take that to mean that kairos has to be both timed correctly, and must be subjectually relevant to the piece that would deliver the point in the most appropriate manner possible at the appropriate time. I believe that this is the basic idea behind arrangement.

                Our authors continue to explain to us that the ancients generally agreed that there are 4 parts to a rhetorical work; of which they list the introduction, narration, proof, and conclusion. This gives a rhetor the general framework that allows that allows him to insert dialogue into the framework and give it life, in a certain way.

                In the introduction phase of the rhetorical work, a rhetor must “set up” his work, and give an audience a frame of reference to what the rhetor is about to present. Our authors mention that the way Cicero would explain that the introduction can either be composed in a way that has a solid and up-front introduction, that is to say that an introduction would present an idea in such a way that would cause the audience to be attentive and ready to receive the following information. In contrast, insinuation is more of an under-handed means that acts to capture the audience’s minds and acts to draw the audience into the piece. Each method has advantages, and are highly subject to the kairos of the moment; meaning that the rhetor must weigh the advantages of both methods and select which one may be more effective in a particular situation.

                In the narrative of the piece, a rhetor must state the issue so that the audience can consider it. Our authors explain that there are many types of narratives, and it would be up to the rhetor to decide which narrative would have the most impact on a target audience. According to Cicero, a narrative may be omitted if the intended audience has already a knowledge of the issue, or if another rhetor has addressed it. In direct opposition to this, Quintilian disagreed with Cicero, and stated that omitting the narrative would be discarding it as if it were useless. Most of the ancients did agree, however, that the narrative should be clear, concise, brief, and non-persuasive.  

                In the proof phase of the piece, the rhetor is then required to present the proofs that support the rhetor’s stance on the narrative. In this part of the piece, the rhetor must select arguments that best support his case in the context of the piece. Here, rhetors can choose to insert confirming statements that will support the narrative, or the rhetor can choose refuting statements that would act to go against the narrative.

                In the conclusion phase of the piece, rhetors can do quite a few different things. Some rhetors may wish to forgo the conclusion phase, depending on the length of the rhetorical piece, or the rhetor may choose to insert a summary of the piece, or some kind of last-minute emotional appeal. There are many possibilities of how a rhetor may choose to close out the work, but it will be up to the rhetor to select the one that best supports the entire work.

                Our textbooks in the course use great examples of how the proper arrangement can increase the interest in a rhetorical work, and cause it to persist over time. By following the simple rules of arrangement, a person may be able to compose an effective and well delivered rhetorical work that will convey the rhetor’s message as effectively as possible by using the spatial element of kairos.  

Extrinsic Proofs

                Extrinsic proofs , as described by our authors, are proofs that exist wholly upon themselves, that are self-evident, and that do not require invention by a rhetor. Our authors go on to explain that there are two types of extrinsic proofs, data and testimony. Rhetoric has application in many different facets of life, and here we will explore where applications of data and testimony used as extrinsic proofs can be found.

                In a court of law, testimony can be given orally by a witness, or a written testimony can be used as an exhibit while a witness is giving a testimony. When giving testimony in a court of law, there are witnesses to the event, and expert witnesses. Our book describes these different types of witnesses as community authorities and proximate authorities. Community authorities would be considered to be the “expert witnesses”. Examples of people who could be considered community authorities would be ballistics experts, doctors, coroners, scientists, and other experts. In a courtroom setting, usually they are depended on to explain an item that is of evidentiary value, no matter if it may be a physical item or testimony. Examples of people who could be considered to be proximate authorities would be persons witness to a crime or an event that have firsthand knowledge of the situation that is at issue. In a courtroom setting, these people are depended on to tell the story of what they saw so that the court would be able to assemble a clearer picture of the events that surround the issue.

An example of data that is used in a rhetorical setting are statistics. Even around a single issue, you may find several data sets that can support or not support a claim. For example, a person could make the argument that seat belts save lives. There are many highway safety studies that support this position, and as such, there are many states that have adopted laws requiring seat belt use while operating a motor vehicle on the roadways of the state. However, a person could also make an argument that seat belts can kill. To support this argument, a person may seek out a data set from a study of traffic related fatalities that involve entrapment in a vehicle due to seat belt use. Although rare, this statistic does exist, and a skilled rhetor could perhaps make a convincing argument that seat belt use places the users at a higher risk of death due to entrapment in a motor vehicle. While this idea may seem silly; I personally know people who refuse to wear seatbelts due to the fact that they believe that in the event of a serious motor vehicle collision, the risk of dying due to entrapment and dying by fire, asphyxiation, or drowning by vehicle submersion, is far greater than the risk of death from blunt force trauma or ejection from the vehicle.

As mentioned before, skilled rhetors can use these proofs to fashion an argument using both testimony and data to illustrate a point that is more easily accepted by the audience. For example, one may make the argument for the adoption of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, that allows off-duty police officers to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection. Such an argument would use testimony of off-duty police officers victimized, or would use the testimony of off-duty officers witness a crime but are powerless to act because of a lack of means of self-defense. Additionally, police experts may be called in to give testimony on regards to the danger that off-duty police officers face due to their vocation. Data may be used in the argument in a way to illustrate the statistics of off-duty police officers that are victims of violent crime that were prohibited from concealed carrying a firearm, and thus were not carrying a firearm, due to restrictive state laws. Additionally, data could be gathered by way of a survey or statistics of the number of times that officers have witnessed a crime off-duty and have failed to act due to a lack of a means to self-defense.

It’s plain to see at this point that while extrinsic proofs are self-evident, they mean different things to different people, and both the interpretation and content may be skewed due to who may be interpreting those facts. Skilled rhetors, therefore have great latitude to form and carry out an argument, dependent on how the facts are presented.

Ramus's attack on Quintilian

                Peter Ramus’s Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian was a piece that had a style that I believe that we have not yet encountered throughout the history of rhetoric in this course. In this piece, Ramus takes a severe stance against Quintilian and is very critical of Quintilian’s works. Ramus puts forth several arguments calling for a dismantling of rhetoric as Quintilian described it and reexamining what was previously held as fact.

                I believe a huge part of Ramus’s dialogue originated from the time period in which he resided. Ramus lived during the Renaissance period, a period of history that was known for revolution and the introduction of new ideas. This period of time saw in interest in the sciences, arts, and literature. This period of time was also known as a time for challenging old commonplaces, where Ramus makes his point.

                In this piece, Ramus calls for a dismantling of rhetoric as Quintilian described it, and discounting some of the requirements or qualifiers that Quintilian put on rhetoric. Whereas Quintilian states that an orator “cannot be perfect unless he is a good man”, Ramus asserts that the character of the man that speaks in irrelevant to his skill in the art. Ramus further asserts that rhetoric does not have jurisdiction over the character of a man, that it’s up to moral philosophers to decide who is moral and who is not.

                Ramus goes on to state that he believes that Quintilian was erroneous in the evaluation of the idea that rhetoric contains five parts, and asserts that rhetoric should only be comprised of style and delivery; and that the remaining parts of “rhetoric”: invention, arrangement, and memory, should be stripped away from classical rhetoric.

                I made a couple of observations about the reading, and the introduction that came before it. Firstly, Ramus wrote this piece during the Renaissance, which I mentioned earlier, was a period of innovation and challenging old concepts. During this time period, there were advances in science and medicine that challenged old world beliefs held over from the ancient world. Because the Dark Ages was a period of stagnation in human civilization, where few people were free to explore concepts such as art, science, and philosophy; the body of knowledge that existed at the beginning of the Dark Ages was for the most part a holdover from the ancient world and civilizations such as the Roman Empire. It was popular during the Renaissance to challenge these beliefs and introduce new ideas. Because human civilization had been stagnant in development for so long, the Renaissance became a hotbed for human development.

                I believe that this is why Ramus found it so easy to attack Quintilian in this piece. People were hungry for new ideas and change, and Ramus was to be the man to deliver it. I believe that his writings were intentionally provocative on purpose, in order to provoke response and increase his popularity. To borrow an analogy from contemporary characters, I would describe Ramus as the “Howard Stern” of his time, a rhetorical “shock jock” who wrote inflammatory pieces in order to draw attention to himself, his issues, and to push his agenda.

                I also find his choice of target to be interesting as well. While he targets Quintilian, a lot of what Ramus criticizes are concepts that came from Aristotle. I think that because of the target of this inflammatory piece, Ramus chose carefully whom he was going to be critical of. I suspect that Ramus was not open to openly criticize Aristotle, quite possibly because he did not want to be labeled as one who slanders the classics, instead, choosing to attack Quintilian, who simply acted to try and expand upon Aristotle’s writing.

                Overall, I’m sure that Ramus was well received, and it shows a style of argument that has not been seen previously; one that is an all-out attack and not one that is aimed at achieving stasis. All in all, I’m sure that Ramus got his message across to his intended audience, and did so well enough that we still talk about him to this day.