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.