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.

The early history of written language

Reading Proust and the Squid was quite an eye opener for me as far as the history of all written language. I have never before had a lesson on just how written language started. I do find this subject to be quite fascinating, and I am amazed at human kind’s ability to develop something so complex.

I believe that our society today simply could not be what it is today without written language. The majority of the wealth of knowledge that is contained in humanity is recorded in written language, and while quite a bit of communication in our culture is conducted orally, I believe an overwhelming majority of communication that occurs globally is done in written language. There are many circumstances where we see communications in written language and we don’t even realize it. For example, I am writing this blog entry on the 2^nd floor of the Compton Union Building at Washington State University beside the stairwell. As I take a look around my surroundings, I see signs all around me that communicate important information. I see a sign in front of me that announces that the room in front of me is the “Senior Ballroom”. Behind me is a similar sign that denotes that the room is the “Junior Ballroom”. Across the space I see a sign telling me that I can find an Automated External Defibrillator nearby. I am composing this blog entry in written English. Written communication has become an indispensable part of our culture, our technology, and our civilization.

All of what I just wrote makes me amazed at the humble beginnings of written language. From the early representations of goods for market, to the early pictograms that were made by the Sumerians, it took humanity thousands of years to develop this kind of language that persists. What is amazing as well about Proust and the Squid is that the piece describes how human brains did not come pre-disposed to reading. In my ignorance, I believed that human brains already had the capacity for written language that was waiting to be tapped through the development of written language. By reading this piece, I learned that the action of reading in the human brain evolved through the use of pathways that were actually designed to recognize patterns and shapes, and to associate them with meanings. While this makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint for such actions as recognizing predators, recognizing footprints for tracking game, or recognizing a good place for cultivation, it did not occur to me that these same circuits could allow for something as complex as written language.

What does make sense about this process is that written language took thousands of years to evolve from simple tokens that represented goods for trade to the earliest complex written language. As a psychology major, we learn a lot about the brain’s processes and neural plasticity. It’s clearly this that allows for the brain to take on these new processes. In addition to a pre-existing brain’s ability to modify itself and create new processes, subsequent generations of persons who learned to read would develop increasingly more complex cognitive processes and brain structures that would allow for reading, as the brain would develop new structures that would allow for these new processes and genetics would pass increasingly more powerful brain structures to subsequent generations.

With respect to the author’s view of the future, I believe that his concern for the civilization’s ability to read and write falling to the wayside is hugely unjustified. If anything, I grow concerned for our civilization’s ability to carry out interpersonal communication. Increasing uses of technology make it easier to communicate with one another, both orally and over written (textual) language. This all comes at a cost, however. All of these technologies that allow for us to communicate at a distance makes it easier to forego interpersonal communication in favor of an e-mail or text message because it is more convenient. In my opinion, interpersonal communication is something that will never be completely replaced by technology. Additionally, in my opinion, interpersonal communication always has been and always will be a favored communication medium for sensitive or personal subjects where the message that is being conveyed may be misinterpreted or may become muddled.

Learning about the history of the human civilization’s use of written language was enlightening, and very informative. It has been interesting learning about where written language comes from, and where it has been. What also excites me is the idea that my generation is continuing to write the history book about the evolution of written communication through the digital age. I’m glad to be able to make my contribution to the cause, by writing this blog.

Using Pathos to Present an Issue.

                Emotional appeals based on the concept of the pathetic proof are again a recurring theme in our society today. There are many instances today of emotional appeals in the media, advertisements, political commentary, and other forms of communication. It has been long established that emotional appeals work well to convince people of a point; according to the authors of our textbook, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, the ancients were able to capture the concept and describe it as “pathos”.

                Emotional appeals appear in everyday life. Take the new Budweiser anti-drunk driving campaign for example. In the ad, there is a man that is portrayed with his dog, what appears to be a yellow lab. The man is shown getting the dog as a puppy and building a relationship with the dog over time. The man goes out with his friends for what the audience can assume is a night of drinking and he does not come home. A voice in the background reminds us that people are waiting for us and we have a responsibility not to drink and drive. The next morning the man comes home and is reunited with the dog.

This, in my opinion, was a calculated choice of dog to portray, because of the popularity of the Labrador retriever breed. According to the American Kennel Club’s website, the Labrador retriever was the most popular choice of dog breed in 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2013. The popularity of this breed means that Budweiser’s commercial can make an appeal to the majority of dog owners in America. Even if dog owners own a Labrador retriever dog with a color other than yellow, the dog will look similar enough that it will evoke emotion in the audience. Even if there are dog owners that do not own a Labrador, the commercial goes on to portray a man playing and bonding with the dog, and experience that the majority of dog owners can identify with.

                Even for members of Budweiser’s audience that are not dog owners, the opening sequence of the commercial builds a scene where the relationship between the man and his dog borders with a relationship with a person. The commercial portrays the dog and the owner as “best friends”, a relationship that people other than dog owners can understand.

                In my opinion, this is a very powerful message that plays right into the idea of pathos, an emotional appeal that attempts to convince an audience that a behavior (such as drunk driving) has radical consequences (such as abandoning an extremely strong emotionally connected relationship) and that you should not engage in the behavior because you will hurt others (lonely dog wondering “where is the alpha?”). These messages are very convincing, and in this circumstance, the message is one that society will accept as a common truth; the idea that drunken driving is a bad thing and that it hurts others. I also believe that this kind of message is more accepted coming from a source such as Budweiser, because of the company’s history of producing heartfelt commercials. I believe that if this commercial were to have been produced by the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission, then the message would have seemed incongruent and out of character with previous messages, which are mostly what can be seen as scare tactics. An example of this would be the “Drive High, Get a DUI” campaign which remind drivers that extra patrols will be on Washington roadways to enforce drunken driving laws.

                While both entities profess the same goals in the advertisements (don’t drive drunk), both have different ways to appeal. Budweiser, in this ad chooses to use pathos, and the WSTC chooses logos. Both arguments are valid, however, the argument that uses pathos (such as the Budweiser advertisement) seems to be much more viral and memorable because of the content of the message.

Overview of Boethius's Overview

                Boethius’s overview of rhetoric seemed to be a summary of the concepts that we have learned up to this point in the course. His outlook on the subject seems to be comprehensive, and his theories of rhetoric reflect the depth of his study into rhetoric; even though he seemed, according to our text, to identify himself more as a philosopher rather than a rhetor. Fortunately, for our modern culture, he devoted himself to the preservation of the texts of the ancients, translating the works of Plato and Aristotle into Latin for preservation.

                Boethius Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric states that he believes that there are three main types of rhetoric: judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Boethius goes on to state that the purpose of judicial rhetoric is to deal with topics that have to do with rendering honor, demanding satisfaction, or dealing with individual cases. Furthermore, Boethius states that judicial rhetoric also deals with anything seeking justice, or when it comes to seeking justice in a court of law.

                Boethius describes demonstrative rhetoric as the debate as to if something is socially useful or proper in the public arena. Boethius further states that demonstrative rhetoric involves cases that have to deal with general topics such as war and peace. Boethius then describes demonstrative rhetoric as something that deals with “what deserves praise or blame”, and “anything treating of the property, justice, or goodness or an act already preformed in a matter of public interest”.

                Boethius then states that there are 5 parts to rhetoric: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. In this instance, Boethius insists on the use of the word “parts”, since in his opinion, if an speaker lacks any of what he considers to be essential parts, his use of rhetoric will be incomplete. Boethius states that no matter what type of rhetoric that a speaker may choose to use, he must have all of the parts required to use rhetoric.

                Boethius goes on to state that the tool of rhetoric is oration, and that the rhetorical oration has 6 parts: introduction, partition, proof, refutation, and peroration. Boethius states that all of these parts of the rhetorical oration must exist in all parts of rhetoric, and unless all parts of the rhetorical oration are present, then the rhetorical oration is useless. Boethius then states that the rhetor must have a goal, both in himself and his audience.

The reading at this point becomes muddled, because of the multiple words used for what the translator assumes should be a similar meaning or idea. Boethius goes over the idea of issues and parts of cases, where he uses the word “status” and the words “constitutiones/constitutio”. Due to the confusion in the text, the author/translator uses the words in the instances that he uses them. From what I am able to discern from the reading is that Boethius the aforementioned types of rhetoric: judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative, are closely related. Boethius then states that many issues can compound each other and work to enhance each other to put forth an argument.

Ethos and Character Development

                I have always thought of the concept of “character development” to mean something quite differently from what I read about this week in our textbook. My concept that I have always thought to be true was that a character was a set of traits that established overarching theme that someone possessed that overall shaped the dialog of a particular piece of writing. I have always thought of ethos as being set by the character and reflected in the writing. What I took away from the reading in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, was that a rhetor will establish his or her character, or ethos through the writing.

                Based on this concept, I also believe that it is possible, albeit within boundaries of what is socially tolerable, to be able to possess, or take on a different character for each particular situation. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students refer to Aristotle’s concept of “invented ethos”. I draw the conclusion that a rhetor will be, depending on how well known he or she is, tied to invent an “invented ethos” to operate within the boundaries of “situated ethos”; which is what I understand to be what is generally known about a rhetor’s character by the audience.

                These two concepts can ebb and flow throughout a rhetor’s career, depending on the audience and how well known he or she is. It is possible for a lesser-known rhetor to have a more flexible character then a more well-known rhetor, due to the fact that the general audience may have less general information about the rhetor. However, a up and coming rhetor must be careful due to the fact that an audience may draw conclusions about the rhetor’s character through examination of his or her “invented ethos”. Inconsistent details in the “invented ethos”, or details that are inconsistent with “situated ethos” will draw attention to those details and detract from the credibility of the rhetor.