Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and...Romeos???

Like Jake, I found this essay to be less than enlightening, but I must admit that this is not a concept that I’ve ever studied before. I have heard the word and I understood it enough…to keep my mouth shut.

I never seemed to be able to wrap my head around it.. So I confess that I didn’t go into the text with much in the way of prior knowledge and quite honestly, I walked away from the reading with little more. While I can certainly appreciate the ethos represented by Covino and his plethora of credits, those very same citations became cumbersome and obtrusive. Never one to be thwarted easily, I decided to do a little research on my own, hoping to find a way to make meaning of the rhetoric.

So after an hour or so on the internet, I had a better idea or at least didn’t feel quite so stupid.

In its basic form rhetoric is “the art of speaking or writing effectively and persuasively” (Merriman-Webster). Well, that seems simple enough. Why is this so complicated? It’s so complicated because no one seems to be able to agree on just what is the “real” theory of rhetoric. The concept of rhetoric is so profound that it goes back to 600 BCE with the Sophists (who are they?). In Ancient Greece guys like Aristotle and Socrates (them I know) and a bunch of their cronies sat around in their bed sheets thinking deep thoughts and waxing poetic in the original philosopher’s think tank. Here in the “cradle of civilization” is where much of our traditional theories of rhetoric originate, but even those brainiacs couldn’t agree. So while the theorists battle it out, once again, I’ll look through the eyes of my freshman for some common ground that we can use in the classroom.

Personally, I like the idea from Gerard A. Hauser (Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 1986):

“Rhetoric is an instrumental use of language…One person engages another person in an exchange of symbols to accomplish some goal. It is not communication for communication’s sake. Rhetoric is communication that attempts to coordinate social action…its goal is to influence human choices on specific matters that require immediate attention.”

Kenneth Burke agrees when he defines rhetoric as “the use of symbols to induce cooperation in those who by nature respond to symbols” (45). As human beings, we are the users of symbols. We are the writers, the speech makers, the ones who can make sense of those symbols. Ancient rhetoric focused primarily on speech, but today’s rhetoric encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also the symbols found in media such as film, radio, television, internet, etc.

Think about the recent political conventions… better examples of rhetoric can not be found.

I get the idea of the relevance of rhetoric as it, “increased professional attention to the teaching of writing… [Which legitimized the field of composition]… (37). Kinneavy posits the importance of the communication triangle of writer, audience, and context as the “relationship that attends all language use” (37) Isn’t this something we talk about with our students when they are writing? Think about your audience, the message that you, the writer, want to get across, and the best medium to present that message? If rhetoric is the talk that prompts action, then aren’t we teaching rhetoric whenever we ask kids to respond to a prompt that forces them to take a stand, support that stance with evidence, and thereby convince the audience of their idea of truth?

The last quarter of the freshman year is driven by the big idea of “Making Good Choices.” A study of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet anchors this design. At the end of the play, I ask my students to consider the following and choose either option A or B.

Friar Lawrence has been accused of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. Remember that involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent.

A. You are the prosecuting attorney in the case against Friar Lawrence. It is your job to prove that the friar is guilty and deserves to be punished.

B. You are the defense attorney in the case against Friar Lawrence. It is your job to prove that the friar is not guilty and therefore deserves no punishment.

Directions: You must take a stance, establish your credibility with the jury, support your claims with evidence from the play, citing both speaker and line, and then make a passionate plea to the jury in hopes that you will persuade them of either guilt or innocence.

We are considering the writer, the audience, and the context, as students are forced to establish ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (deductive reasoning) in order to make a persuasive appeal that will instigate some action.

Geez, I guess I’ve been teaching rhetoric all along…who knew??

A Dangerous Game of Inventing Truths

"Socrates suspects rhetoric--especially as it is practiced by the sophists--as a dangerous deferral of the pursuit of ideal truth" (41).

Rhetoric:
1. the available means of persuasion
2. the study of misunderstanding and its remedies
3. the performance of literacy
4. everything

Or perhaps as Socrates suggests, rhetoric is a dangerous tool. Taking rhetoric outside of the writing classroom for a minute, since "rhetoric is everything" anyway, and examining it in the context of a medical lab, a courtroom, or a boardroom, rhetoric has the power to begin and stop research, free and imprison the innocent, and make and break billion-dollar deals. Since persuasion has become such a powerful player in everything from politics to aesthetics, has it become an obstacle to the pursuit of truth, justice, and honor? Do we turn to "base rhetoric" to rationalize poor decisions we make or poor actions we take in order to sleep more soundly at night? When did the power to persuade become the power to excuse and abuse?

In Covino's brief history of rhetoric, it is clear that over the years, scholars have favored Aristotle's notion of contingent, relative truth over Plato's notion of ideal truth. In this sense, the end point of the history of rhetoric is fairly similar to Aristotle's starting point: reality is constructed by language. By using language to define our own realities and our own truths, and eventually redefine our own realities and our own truths, this notion of rhetoric does not simply help us see ambiguity and "misunderstandings," but, more severely, it serves as a hallucinogen that distorts and manipulates.

I need to keep thinking about this...particularly as someone who is teaching a composition and rhetoric course.

In the meantime, I will enjoy reading the theories of rhetorical scholars who do what Plato warns all against: talking in circles to prove their own points rather than working together in pursuit of the truth.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos...that's all I know...

Rhetorical Pedagogy
“Rhetorical Pedagogy” by William A. Covino

I admit rhetoric is something I have minimal knowledge about. All I know is ethos, pathos, logos, and a few of the famed theorists in rhetoric (e.g. Aristotle). Rhetorical Pedagogy (RP) seems to have some trouble figuring out how they fit into the modern make-up of compositional theory. That said, the historical presence of rhetoric has always been strong, but as time has progressed the historical/traditional rhetoricians have had trouble defining themselves and their field in modern education. While rhetoric has been everything from strictly structured to ambiguous and globally encompassing, rhetoric’s attention to audience, context, the message being portrayed via language is still necessary to consider today in teaching writing. However, what to take from RP seems to be the struggle for teachers. Personally, I think some rhetorical training and/or a thorough review of RP in a class would’ve been helpful to me as a budding teacher. I can see the value of knowing those early concepts and perhaps I could use some of those concepts in class more effectively, if I knew more. Therefore, I do question how much of RP should be a part of my teaching style/class. I also wonder how to use RP in a freshman composition class where the students don’t usually write a ‘traditional’ persuasive paper (yes, I aware that ‘traditional’ is somewhat nondescript on my end). Can I use RP in other ways, for other papers, and with text? I think so, but I feel I don’t know enough about the foundational theories/texts; therefore, RP seems to a large mountain to scale and I don’t know where to start. I even have trouble getting students to understand rhetorical strategies, which often start with the ‘basic’ ethos, pathos, and logos. I hope class will give me some practical applications or ideas of how to take this pedagogy and build upon what I already try to do.

Back to our Aristotelian Roots - Rhetorical Pedagogy

If, as Covino states early in his article, “a rhetorical pedagogy […] keeps in view the skills and contingencies that attend a variety of situations and circumstances” (37), is there room for some elements of this pedagogy in today’s writing classroom? As I read the article I was hoping to find more answers. What I did find interesting, however, was Covino’s review of the history of rhetoric, especially his description of its disappearance with the rise of objective scientific inquiry and the resulting current-traditional rhetoric. However, it seems the door was opened for another look at rhetorical pedagogy during twentieth-century rejection of rules-bound methods. My snapshot-only knowledge of Aristotelian rhetoric and its focus on “invention” and the use of language to shape our world tell me there might be something in it for writing teachers as we struggle to impart knowledge about methods of discourse in our classrooms.

The Old is the New is the Old Again (but it's probably best if we don't concern ourselves with defining the term)

If the goal of rhetorical pedagogy is to empower the student to search for truth, the meaning of everything, and to examine the connection "between constructed and actual experience" (47), I have to recognize this as a laudable goal and a philosophically ambitious view of language. But rhetorical pedagogy assumes a lot about the student it is trying to liberate and refine.

First, it assumes that the same privileges afforded to the educated classes thousands of years ago which allowed rhetoric to flourish are the same held by students today. It assumes that the student comes to the class equipped with a solid educational base and a world view reinforced by a family structure which places a high value on education and the search for truth, clarity and understanding. An education interrupted by hunger, poverty, violence or simple indifference at home poses a problem to the student of rhetorical pedagogy.

It also assumes that the student has some recognition of their command of their language, that they haven't been told their language is "wrong" or that it and their thoughts need correction, and that the language and methodology they are being taught hasn't been used against them.

From what I understand of it, I admire rhetorical pedagogy for its emphasis on the power of language, but I'm worried that it simply reinforces mimicry of the language of the dominant class, ethnicity, gender, and race rather than fostering the variances of languages used within minority communities.

I'm basing this off my own experiences with rhetorical pedagogy both as a student and a teacher. As a student, I thought the rigid structure and emphasis of function over form was insulting. As I teacher, I found it insulting as well, and ultimately, seemed to appeal more to administrators and text book publishers than those in the classroom. Is that harsh? Probably.

Again, I think I see the goal and the need for what rhetorical pedagogy is trying to accomplish, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to heap this on the student (especially considering that the definition of rhetoric is a moving target- what it is exactly?). I'm not comfortable in declaring this pedagogy unusable; I'm sure it has a time and a place, but I haven't been able to figure out either (again, speaking from my experience).

The structure and discipline it offers is attractive, but when I hear those terms - "structure" "topic sentences" "controlled writing" - I can't help but interpret that as "good writing is such and such". Where does that leave writing that does not mimic the model de jour? By definition, that would mean it's considered bad, right?

Reality is Rhetorical

"The idea that reality is 'rhetorical' has brought into focus the problem of defining rhetoric itself. When we teach 'rhetoric,' what is it that we are teaching? One answer is, 'everything' (Covino 47).

"Rhetoric is a mode of altering reality. . . " (Bitzer, qtd in Covino 47).
---
Oh most beautiful solution: rhetoric.
Oh most complicated task: rhetoric.
Oh most nebulous definition: rhetoric.
Oh most majority-centric past: rhetoric.

Let me be frank: I think we can learn a lot from rhetorical pedagogy. If my students could THINK and CONSTRUCT ARGUMENTS the way that rhetoricians of old did--I would celebrate mightily.

Perhaps the thing I like most about rhetorical pedagogy (RP) is the idea that, through our rhetorical choices, we really and truly create the universe in which our ideas are sounded.

(All those interested in god-hood, here's your ticket.)

Why is this good? This, I think, opens up rhetorical pedagogy to all people, regardless of age/gender/color/background/ethnicity/etc. etc. etc. In a framework of a rhetorician's choosing, more methodologies become admissible.

Now, I'm not saying that there won't be significant work at hand, especially if the writer is proposing a reality readers may be unaccustomed to. However, the opportunity is significant. And I see this as bringing 'functional' or 'academic' writing closer to the creative arts--context, rhetorical universe, etc. is quite important there. Isn't that what the creative writers do--understand what's been done and then change it, or oblige its continuance?

More than anything, though, rhetoric's 'past'--its old, dead, white guy past--gives the modern rhetorician something to either work with, or, even, against. Do you fancy some inverted binaries? Go forth!

Now: what would it take to teach this? What would students have to be exposed to, to support a RP? I'd like to think about it further, and I just may with my extended project for this class. I really believe in pressing students to become aware of the written context that exists so far outside of their reality, it sometimes seems. Let's make our students aware that their existence is part of a greater whole and that their writing is too.

And that is all, for now.