Woolf and Women in Shorts

Virginia Woolf once said “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction” (1250). When looking at the history of women in rhetoric (as I have been doing the last few weeks), women were not even allowed to have money or a room of their own until pretty recently. In the medieval and early renaissance, it was very difficult for women successfully continue their scholarship after marriage unless their husband died. Marriage was usually a forcible obligation women were under from their families because they had no legal right to money or property. Modesta Fonte, an Italian humanist writer, in her book The Worth of Women, discusses how marriage meant the end of freedom since upper class women of this period were required to be sequestered in the home after marriage, and they were rarely allowed to even leave the house except on special occasions. This is the same way women were treated in Athenian society some 1000 years earlier. It appears that, for many women throughout the centuries, “Husbands and hard times are never long in arriving” as Fonte puts it (48).

The Rhetorical Tradition points out that the majority of rhetoric “produced before the modern period comprised arguments for allowing women to express themselves at all in speech or writing, ore especially to practice rhetoric in public forums” (1200). Virginia Woolf is significant because she is one of the first women rhetoricians that was advancing the genre of rhetoric with female viewpoints, rather than only arguing for women’s value in the first place. While Woolf does argue for women’s value, as all female rhetoricians seemed to have to do, she also discusses the unique quality that women writers add to the world of thought. She points out the shallow quality of female characters in most fiction written by men. “Suppose for instance that men were only represented in literature as the lovers of women, and were never the friends of men, soldiers, thinkers, dreamers” (1264). This rhetorical technique of comparing a typical social situation for a women and then placing a man in the same role is still in effective use by man feminists today.

 (It would seem strange to tell men not to wear shorts when it is hot outside, but women get slut-shammed for this all the time.) 

Another excellent point Woolf made is how fictional women characters interact with each other in things written by men verses women. “Cleopatra’s only feeling about Octavia is one of jealousey…but how interesting it would have been if the relationship between the two women had been more complicated” (1264).

This reminded me of the Bechdel Test, which is “sometimes called the Mo Movie Measure or Bechdel Rule. [it is] a simple test which names the following three criteria: (1) it has to have at least two women in it, who (2) who talk to each other, about (3) something besides a man. The test was popularized by Alison Bechdel's comic Dykes to Watch Out For, in a 1985 strip called The Rule.” This is according to the website https://bechdeltest.com/

(This is a screen shot from the website with recently added movies that have passed and failed the test )


 Clearly, this issue with women's representation in fiction has not ended, it has only expanded to the sphere of motion pictures. 

Burke and Dierrida – I should have posted this last week, but I was infected by a horrible plague

The Rhetorical Tradition explains that much of Kenneth Burke’s work over more than 50 years “has been to attempt to redefine and expand the scope of rhetorical analysis to apply it to all forms of language use” (1295). This is the understanding I currently have of the purpose of modern rhetoric and it is interesting to find out where this idea began in modern times and how it took 2500 years to get there. Burke says that motives consist of Act (what took place), Scene (when or where it was done, setting/background), Agent (who did it), Agency (what means ), and Purpose (why). Whether people make it known or not everything has a motive “poetry and fiction, in political and scientific works, in news and bits of gossip offered at random” (1298). I really like how Burke described this and it really makes sense toward the foundation of rhetoric today. I have always subscribed to this view myself, before knowing that Burke had these ideas, expect my version is to ask: “Who’s paying for it?”  Because, generally speaking, you can quickly discern the motive of someone’s rhetoric by who writes their paycheck. This is how rhetoric can apply to every discipline, by looking at the underlying structure of how a discipline writes it rhetoric and why. Clearly, Berlin and many others have expanded on Burke’s ideas into the modern form of rhetorical analysis. I also like how Burke declares that literature is not exempt from the study of its motivation, thus it is not exempt from rhetoric as many have tried to claim.

  

Derrida is also an interesting character that I have heard a lot about, but have not really studied in-depth. I now know that Dierrida comes from the Plato/Nietchze school of thought that human’s observation of external reality is limited by their sense perception. This has actually been scientifically proven at least in the sense that we know we cannot see the full spectrum of light. However, this idea has caused a whole rabbit whole of semiotics study where people try to understand words and what their meaning conveys and focuses on the imperfect means of conveying thought from one person to another. However, I think this thinking gets away from an appreciation of writing as an art and an appreciation of the artist themselves. If we remove the author and focus only on words, we remove an important element from the appreciation of art in my opinion. Until we learn to read each other’s minds, we will just have to accept the fact that some words will mean different things to different people. However, I do think Dierrida is correct in his focus on writing as an important form of communication and not just oral communication, which was the traditional focus for so many philosophers dating back to Aristotle and Plato. Writing was a new form of communication to the early Greeks and Dierrida acknowledges the significance of writing in our modern times. Even if writing is a “picture, reproduction, imitation of its content” it “will be the invariant trait of all progress to come” (1477). I must say I prefer written communication to oral when it comes to academics because you have time to really think about what you want to say and you can revise it. You cannot revise something you have said in person, and this can lead to regrettable circumstances. On the other hand, I prefer talking to close friends in person because I feel like the gestures and tone better communicate feelings. 

Truth, Lies, Literature, Rhetoric, Language, Composition, Nietzsche and Fred Newton Scott

Nietzsche was a brilliant philosopher who is often quoted and referenced in today’s modern philosophy, though he wasn’t as popular in his day because his ideas were so radically advanced for the time. His idea that all language is rhetorical is certainly fascinating and certainly very accurate when looking at it through the lens of semiotics as he does. Nietzsche was similar to John Locke and others in his ideas that words are metaphors for concepts. Humans cannot adequately understand the “essence” of things. Plato also felt there was an “essence” to things, or a “universal” that was imperceptible to the average human. Plato said that reality is “similar to something real, but it isn’t actually real. it looks as though it’s wrong to attribute full reality to a joiner or any artisan’s product.” Thus, Nietzsche ideas on language are similar to Plato's ideas on reality. Nietzsche said in Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense “Human beings... are deeply immersed in illusions and dream images; their eyes merely glide across the surface of things and see ‘forms’...” 

Locke also said that “words having no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts” (818). The Rhetorical Tradition also explains that “Locke argues that all ideas are mental combinations of sense perceptions and that words refer not directly to things but mental phenomena” (Bizzell 799). Thus, this is similar to Nietzsche's view of language who said “Is there a perfect match between things and their designation? Is language the full and adequate expression of all realities?...When different languages are set alongside one another it becomes clear that, where words are concerned, what matters is never truth, never the full adequate expression, otherwise there would no be so many languages….We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entity.” Thus, he agrees that language is not a direct mechanism for communication and can be misinterpreted. hile Nietzsche does argue that language itself is in fact, false “regular and rigid new world is built from its own sublimated products-concepts-in order to imprison it in a fortresses.” The fortress of language is built upon cobwebs. It is fragile.

 However, he does not see this as much of a problem the way Plato and Locke do. Plato said “So if anyone is caught lying in our community...he is to be punished on the grounds that he’s introducing a practice which is just as liable to wreck and ruin a community." On the other hand, Nietzsche does not see what the big deal is about truth in the first place. Lying is how we preserve life: “As a means for the preservation of the individual, the intellect shows its greatest strengths in dissimulation [dishonesty], since this is the means to preserve those weaker, less robust individuals who, by nature, are denied horns or sharp fangs.” Instead of “horns” man was given intellect to protect itself. The truth can be scary or unpleasant. Human beings themselves have an unconquerable urge to let themselves be deceived, and they are as enchanted with happiness when the bard recites epic fairy-tales.” Thus, “truth is a comfortable lie.” 



But do we want to be lied to? To some degree rhetoric helps us seperate the “truth” from the “lies” even if these are both subjective. This leads to the ideas of someone like Berlin who looks at “the ways [rhetoric’s] very discursive structure can be read so as to favor one version of economic, social, and political arrangements over other versions… (477).  Every person delivering a persuasive message has “…assumptions about what is real, what is good, what is possible, and how power ought to be distributed” (Berlin 492). One must look at the motives of the speaker that inform their rhetoric if everyone is using the metaphor of language to deceive one another, there is always a motivation behind one’s deception. For example, if one compliments someone, even when they do not mean it, as Nietzsche refers to “white lies” it is usually to maintain a social order, or to advance in one’s career, or some other means to an end.  

Speaking of rhetoric with an agenda, the 19th century is when rhetoric began to make its split from literature, and the idea of “composition” instruction that we still use today took hold. Romantic literature especially began to bring to light the differences between “spontaneity, expression of feeling and imagination” of poetry with writers like Wordsworth, and the “planned discourse” that rhetoric is (995). Composition began to focus on “Bain’s modes of discourse and paragraph unity with Hill’s prescriptivism in grammar, usage and style” (995).  All of these “clear guidelines” are certainly the antithesis of spontaneous poetry meant to convey feelings, and the split between literary criticism and rhetoric makes some sense. In this more stripped-down form rhetoric does seem different than literature. Even though, a poet still has a rhetorical purpose in writing, even if that purpose is to convey feelings. They are certainly feelings they wish to convey more than others, so I would argue that literary criticism and poetry are still forms of rhetoric, especially looking at the way someone like Nietzsche writes where he combines poetry, aphorisms, philosophy and persuasion. But, for the purposes of categorization English departments and rhetoric began to part ways and rhetoric became the domain of speech classes. I thought it was interesting how “in the new middle-class colleges, composition was a required course taught by assistant professors and graduate assistants” (994). Certainly, this is still the case considering I am in the TA program at CSUN and I am currently a grad student about to teach a mandatory class in composition. Students still “generally hope to “leave this subject behind as soon as possible” (995). 

Fred Newton Scott was certainly ahead of his time as one of the only composition professors in the 19th century who believed “that composition is…a social act, and the student [should] therefore constantly [be] led to think of himself as writing or speaking for a specified audience. Thus, not mere expression but communication as well is made the business of composition.” This is much closer to the way we look at rhetoric today in a word where women and people of color finally have a voice, even if it is often subdued. He also though English departments should balance work in rhetoric and linguistics in addition to literary study, which was not done at the time. However, he would be happy to know that is what my graduate degree consists of today. 

Some Thoughts on Women in Rhetoric (since I'm writing a paper about it).

19^th century rhetoric is an interesting period because women were finally getting a major voice in public affairs. By the end of the eighteenth century in Europe and the United States, “women were still almost completely excluded from university education and were barred from the professions of law and political office” (Bizzell 986). But by the end of the nineteenth century, American women finally gained access to higher education at women’s colleges such as Vassar and they could study classical rhetoric at these institutions. Although, women had been writing for many years before this, it was finally publicly accepted for the most part.  

A major reason for the improvement in women’s education was the introduction of Protestant Christianity, which encouraged a less patriarchal view of spirituality. For example, in Scandinavia, Germany and England schools for girls increased because of Protestants who believed both men and women should at least be educated enough to read the bible and reflect upon its contents in order to have their own relationship with God. Bizzell explains that “women’s education was usually defended on the grounds that it made better Christians and more docile daughters and wives” (Bizzell 748-749).  Despite this, women began to feel that they answered to the higher authority of God even if men chastised them.

The Quakers, a radical protestant faction of Christianity, produced some of the first women orators. Margaret Fell was a well-known English Quaker leader who spoke in public on social issues, and preached and published on behalf of her faith, reminiscent of Margery Kemp some 200 years earlier. Fell argued that women as orators was justified by scripture. Fell stated, “we see Jesus owned the love and grace that appeared in women and did not despise it” (753). This paved the way for more and more Protestant women to begin speaking out on social issues.

The abolitionist movement and 1st wave feminist movement in the United States were closely linked as many African American women spoke up against the burdens of both slavery and womanhood. 

African American Maria W. Stewart was a religious woman in the early 1800’s who spoke out against slavery. She was criticized for speaking to mixed audiences of men and women as this was considered scandalous at the time (Bizzell 988). This was yet another attempt by the patriarchal western society to attack a strong female rhetorician’s credibility by labeling her as unchaste. 

Sojourner Truth was a very famous orator who “denounced slavery and the oppression of women” (Bizzell 989).  Though she never learned to read or write, she had a colloquial rhetorical style that appealed to white audiences and was very influential in pushing the agenda of rights for African American people of both sexes as well as women of all races. Thus, women have been on the forefront of progressive political movements in the United States since early in its history.

A Brief Rant on Code Switching since its Kinda my Thing Now

Mike Rose, who is well known in the field of education, wrote his ground breaking  essay “The Language of Exclusion” in 1985. Even though it is over 30 years old now, the problems he discusses still persist. In it he discusses an important idea known as the “Myth of Transience.” Transience basically says, “if we can do x or y, the problem [ of bad grammar] will be solved” (394). However, transience “blinds faculty members to historical reality” (395).  This reality includes  grammar correction as assimilation for Native Americans. it also comes from  early American education’s tendency to borrow terms from the medical community, which Rose discusses in his essay. For example, the word "remedial" comes from medical terms of the late 1800's and often refers to mental handicap. Hence, the idea of grammar correction as “diagnosis” of a problem (Rose 381). Freshman composition courses in college originated in 1874 “as a Harvard response to the poor writing of upperclassmen” and it “became and remained the most consistently required course in the American curriculum” (Rose 342). Thus, the idea of inferior and superior language was a major force in American education and still is today. This is a subject I have paid particular attention to in my graduate studies. 

Rose's ideas remind me of ideas also stated in  “Clueless in Academe” by Gerald Graff, who is well known for his writing instruction book They Say I Say. He differentiates between “student-speak” and “intellectual-speak.” He makes a powerful point about Academic language as seperate from native speech. Graff explains that, “The combination of [“studentspeak” and “Intellectualspeak] registers is more powerful that either alone” (42). Hence, I believe “intellectual-speak,” is a language, or at least a “language variety,” and should be recognized as such. Thus, switching between one’s home language and "intellectualspeak"  is a form of Code Switching, the practice of alternating between two or more languages or varieties. One language variety is not superior to the other. 

Although not all scholars who discuss this issue, like Rose or Graff, directly acknowledge that moving from Academic language to home language is code switching.  In my own tutoring and teaching experience thus far, I find that I am often explaining academic concepts in more easily understandable terms and students seem to appreciate this. Thus, code switching is essential to instructors and students alike. I have been asked by many students why we don’t write like how we talk, and this is a valid question. I answer this question by asking them to think of it as a new language, the “language of academia.” 

To foster inclusion for students, instructors should look at it as translating the home language into academic language, regardless of what that home language is. Jacqueline Jones Royster in her article says there is a “critical importance of the role of negotiator, someone who can cross boundaries and serve as guide and translator for others” especially in academia (34). This is the role that writing professors should play in my opinion, rather than brandishing the attitude that students are inferior like the educators described in Rose's essay.  

The Enlightenment and Rhetoric -Also a Video of Me Conferencing :)

The Enlightenment saw the rise of linguistics, grammar, semiotics, epistemology and even psychology joining the list of things that are related in some way to rhetoric. A debate also arose on rhetoric as the primary source of rhetorical practices and admiration and if this was really a necessary part of it. While traditional rhetoric remained strong in schools, Cartesian curriculum combining religion, mathematics, science, history and French also emerged. In this method, empirical scientific study began to form and “assignments were based on students’ own experience or their response to reading” (795). This sounds very similar to what most assignments in freshman writing entail in modern times. Although Europe resisted the change to empirical studies, tutors who knew this method were still available, and clearly it is what became the foundation for scientific inquiry as we know it today.

When one looks up the word rhetoric today, one of the definitions listed in Webster’s Dictionary is “insincere or grandiloquent language.” This definition is certainly influenced partly by the ideas of Bacon, Descartes, and Ramis who saw rhetoric as the art of obfuscation. The enlightenment saw thinkers wanting to revert to a “plain” language and attacking rhetoric once again for being a means to manipulate people with fancy language, just like the debate between Plato and the Sophists. This lead to John Locke’s ideas on what words actually mean. Locke said that “the chief end of language in communication [is] to be understood” and words have failed to serve this duty “when any word does not excite in the hearer the same idea which it stands for in the speaker” (817). He saw a fundamental flaw in this transfer of ideas when it comes to intangible concepts, like morality, or concepts made up of many small ideas. Thus, one should not try to confuse the faculties of understanding of the audience by adding extra fancy language. It is interesting how Locke uses rhetoric to attack rhetoric, but he does point out that he examines the fallible nature of words not because he “thinks commentaries are needless; but to show how uncertain the names of mixed modes naturally are” (820). He says that figurative language “in all discourses that pretend to inform or instruct” are “wholly to be avoided; and where truth and knowledge are concerned cannot but be the fault either of the language or person that makes use of them” (827). Thus, Locke believes that rhetoric can be used for manipulation and this should not taint education. This is very similar to the ideas that Plato had. This makes me wonder what Locke or Plato would think of a journal article written today, as they tend to be very wordy and grandiose in style, yet they are used in university education all the time.

Locke’s discussion on words leads to a study of epistemology because Locke goes on to discuss the nature of knowledge and how “words having no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts” (818). Hence, the nature of knowledge itself and how we learn is being scrutinized.  The Rhetorical Tradition also explains that “Locke argues that all ideas are mental combinations of sense perceptions and that words refer not directly to things but mental phenomena” (Bizzell 799). Locke and other philosophers had a fascination with how the faculties for understanding in humans worked and sensory perception. This lead to an analysis of the mind that would pave the way for modern psychology.

I always associated these ideas on word signifiers with the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “although the word was used in this sense in the 17th century by the English philosopher John Locke, the idea of semiotics as an interdisciplinary mode for examining phenomena in different fields emerged only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the independent work of Saussure.” In addition, I realized that Etienne Bonnot De Condillac was inspired by Locke to come up with the idea of universal grammar, which lead to the invention of the study of linguistics.  I always attributed the concept of universal grammar to Noam Chomsky. I now realize that de Saussure and Chomsky were building off of these ideas from the Enlightenment, which actually makes their ideas more clear to me.

The Enlightenment is also (unfortunately) when grammar instruction began its association with rhetoric. Ironically, the investigation of “pure” language was developing while linguistics was simultaneously coming up with ideas that completely disprove “pure” language. The Rhetorical Tradition calls it the “eighteenth-century fetish for correctness in language” (Bizzell 802). This idea still persists today in order to oppress low income populations. However, people like Sir William Jones discovered similarities “among Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit” that presented the idea of universal grammar (801). The idea of universal grammar can be used to prove that one language is not necessarily superior to another because they all share common characteristics. One could make this observation about African American Vernacular English today, for example.

This is area is of particular interest to me, as I wrote about the language purity rhetoric that emerged in the United States during this same period in my paper, "Standard American English and Education: The Necessary Contamination of Pure English" last semester. I just presented this paper at the Acacia graduate conference at Cal State Fullerton on Saturday March 24th. I will insert the video below. 

What is Rhetoric Part III

As much as European thinkers struggled with the application of rhetoric in various fields such as law or medicine, going into the Renaissance, they began again to try to define what Rhetoric itself actually is basing ideas off of the great Greek and Roman thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Gorgias, Cicero, and Quintilian. As we explore the Renaissance, we learn that Roman Catholic church’s stranglehold on Europe began to loosen (a little), and Renaissance rhetoric is associated with Italian Humanism and the poet Petrarch who “sought a model for thinking, writing, and acting in society that was faithfully Christian, yet more conducive to the development of individual talents than scholasticism seemed to be” (557). As people began to debate ideals, two writers who discussed what rhetoric itself  as a discipline where Ramus and Bacon.

Peter Ramus lived from 1515-1572 and studied at university of Paris. Ramus “worked his way through school as a servant to wealthier students” (674). While he studied the classic thinkers, he was banned from teaching until 1547 because he thought Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian was useless. “Aristotle’s logic both lacked many virtues and abounded in faults…yet now Quintilian follows Aristotle’s and cicero’s confusion of dialectic and rhetoric” (681). He believed the ability to reason is innate in normal humans and one did not need to learn it from Aristotle.  He also felt Philosophy or dialectic should be considered separate from rhetoric, and that rhetoric consisted only of style and delivery. Dialectic, on the other hand, included arrangement, invention and memory. Although memory was not seen as important, however, because arrangement has natural structure of human mind. This reminded me of my speech teachers in past who insisted on an outline rather than learning the speech word for word. Ramus also though arrangement is based on a syllogism starting with general principals and working down through levels of generality to particulars (676). This reminded me of the introduction of an academic essay where one gradually works through various definitions of the topic, becoming more and more specific as they work their way toward the thesis. Interestingly, Ramus did not have a specific profession, such as a politician, in mind in his ideas on rhetoric, which is very different than most previous thinkers leading up to him that we have discussed who constantly debated the fields in which rhetoric should be applied.

Almost shockingly, Ramus felt that studying classical rhetoric was a waste of time, and one could see how his ideas seem radical to the status quo. In fact, his ideas are still radical today in that regard. Ramus states in his diatribe against Quintilian, “For how many days, indeed how many years and ages do we suppose are wretchedly spent on false conjectures about these disciplines [dialectic and rhetoric]? I wish I had not known the wretchedness of wasting so much of my youth in this way” (681). This does not sound like a guy who liked school. Quintilian, conversely, stated that we should spend all our extra time studying and not waste it on other pursuits, “But if all these hours were allotted to study, [and not visits, idle conversations, private amusements, etc.] our life would seem long enough and out time amply sufficient for learning” (427). Definitely polar opposite positions on the benefits of studying.

Francis Bacon, on the other hand, had a more level-headed view on things than Ramus, but he also debated on the nuances of what rhetoric actually is rather than its application. He lived from 1561-1626 and was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, and author. He served both as Attorney General and as Lord Chancellor of England. He also never met a bribe he did like, and his political stance seemed mainly to be self-preservation. Unfortunately, he did not invent bacon, but his name does make me hungry (ha ha).  Bacon divided knowledge into two branches: Theology and philosophy and “then divided the latter into theoretical inquiry, which investigates causes and practical inquiry, which seeks effects” (737). He used Ramus’ binary opposition, but saw Ramus’ dialectic as a version of the Scholasticism Ramus claims to condemn. Also, Bacon did not subscribe to Ramus’ separation of dialectic and Rhetoric. He felt that the disciplines needed to overlap. In the The Advancement of Learning  he states, “The duty and office of Rhetoric is to apply reason to imagination for the better moving of the will” (743). He felt that men’s minds should fortify themselves against the assaults of the four classes of idols which beset them (745). He said there are Idols of the Tribe, which is the tribe or race of man “human understanding is like a false mirror, which receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolours the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it” (745).  This sounds a lot like Plato’s concept of reality as not fully perceptible by humans.  Idols of the Cave are the idols of the individual since everyone has a cave of their own. Idols of the Market Place is the association of men with each other on account of commerce. The most troublesome of all the Idols. The idol of the Theatre is dogma of philosophy “all received systems are but so many stage plays” (746).

What is Rhetoric? Part II

So, I’ve noticed in this blog, I’ve focused a lot on the history of rhetoric. Maybe it is because history is one of my favorite subjects, but I am going to continue in this vein.

In the wake of Christianity and Islam’s influence over the European continent, and the fall of the Roman empire, rhetoric began its strange journey into the broad definition that it holds today. During this period, the debate on the proper uses of rhetoric that was essentially started by Aristotle continued. Throughout the Medieval period, rhetoric would find itself becoming integral to religious as well as secular life in various disciplines. 

In the early part of the Medieval period, Rhetoric was kept alive mainly in monasteries, where monks learned to read and write and preserve records. As far back as the mid-200’s, Origen, who taught in Palestine, “used Jewish exegetical methods to legitimize a kind of allegorical reading that extracted moral and spiritual meanings from the Bible” (432). Thus, rhetoric was now being used to analyze the Bible. In 529 C.E., Justinian closed the schools of Athens, but Benedict founded the monastery of Monte Cassino in Italy “symbolizing the way Latin-speaking Christian culture would appropriate classical learning” (434). I found it interesting that “at this time the best scholars of classical learning in Europe were Irish monks” including the famous “Saint Patrick.” Given that, in earlier times, Celtics believed in skill in oratory to pass on their myths and traditions, it makes a lot of sense. Archbishop Isidore of Seville also helped shape monastic rules to preserve classical study. However, he saw rhetoric as chiefly “secular and especially legal occupation” (436). 

Throughout this period, the Byzantine, Muslim and Christian empire emerged. In 800, Frankish king Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by the Pope. He founded palace schools and brought in the best scholars from all over Europe to teach grammar and rhetoric to nobility. Alcuin directed the school and argued that rhetoric had “civic usefulness,” especially for the conduct of government (438).  

By the 12^th century, classical teachers of “grammar” would cover all five canons of classical rhetoric and included analysis of poetry’s “uses of tropes and figures” (439). Philosophy was transformed in the 12^th Century by the rediscovered influence of Aristotle thanks to the Arab and Jewish peoples. “Dialectic flourished for its usefulness not only to theology but also increasingly to professionalized disciplines of law and medicine” (441). In the 13^th Century, Thomas Aquinas famously used rhetoric in his writings that became Catholic doctrine.

Thus, rhetoric would come to be associated with the disciplines of theology, law, medicine, hermeneutics, poetry, and government. Aristotle certainly believed rhetoric played important roles in law, politics, and public life. In addition, the application of Rhetorical principles can be extremely broad. Knowing the history of how all of this came to be makes all the varying Rhetoric classes I have taken over the years seem much less random.

Egyptians, Semites, and Women in Ancient Greece

The history of Egyptians, Semites, and women in ancient Greece is an interesting one. I like that we are discussing these topics in this class as my previous rhetoric classes never touched on these ideas when discussing ancient Greece. Typically, one pictures Plato and others as old white men with beards, however, I never thought much about their race except to assume that the Greeks were Greek, whatever that means. In Black Athena the author argues that Phoenicians and Egyptians greatly influenced Greek culture, and, considering their proximity and similarity of langue, this seems like a rather obvious conclusion. However, Euro-centrics over the years have tried to argue otherwise.

The reading “Rhetoric, Possibility, and Women's Status in Ancient Athens: Gorgias' and Isocrates' Encomiums of Helen” by Susan Biesecker, brings up Pericles’ law instituted in 451 B.C.E that stated “that if a child was to be guaranteed full rights to citizenship, not only the father, but also the mother had to be an Athenian citizen.” (101). Biesecker discusses this in the context of its implication for the status of Athenian women. In its attempt to distinguish who is a citizen and who isn’t, the law brought up the idea of women as Athenian citizens and challenged the authority of the patronym because “the law identified no difference between the citizenship of men and women” (103). This actually caused more disputes over citizenship rather than less because the mother’s genealogy then had to be traced in a society that was only recording male linage up to this point. Biesecker points out that this meant women’s status was suddenly in the spotlight. It did not give them full rights as citizens, but implied that they were citizens, it made matrilineage important, and did put the idea of male patronyms into question. Biesecker’s main argument is that the trend in women’s status “consisted of a series of changes that were sometimes continuous and sometimes discontinuous from the past” (100). She contests other scholars in the fields of anthropology, history and classics and the ways they depict women’s status in Hellenic antiquity. However, her example of Pericles’s law brings up some very interesting points apart from analyzing the trajectory of change.

I find it interesting how Biesecker did not mention the later overturning of that law by Pericles himself. According to our textbook, he did this specifically to grant citizenship to his children with Aspasia, who was born in Miletus (56-57). Thus, one must wonder if Pericles lowered the status of Athenian women for the sake of a “foreign” woman? This is an interesting twist of fate, if one looks at it that way. Or did the questions on Women’s status already brought up by the implementing of the law continue on after it was overturned? Women seemed to play a slightly larger role in Roman society, so maybe this did get the ball rolling, so to speak.

She also discusses two essays by Gorgias and Isocrates that argue about Hellen of Troy. Gorgias uses forensic rhetoric while Isocrates uses deliberative.  Biesecker states, that “The action that the deliberative orator advocates might challenge established social relations or reinforce the position of those already in power” (106) and argues that Gorgias intends to shake up the establishment while Isocrates does not. Her essays states, “Gorgia’s defends Helen as a victim of four overpowering forces, Isocrates praises her for her beauty” (106).  While it may not have been a huge step for women in Athens, “If the possibility of an opening for women, however small, had been created by Pericles’ law, Gorgias speech shows no inclination to close it” (105). On the other hand, Isocrates relegates Hellen to the role of the maker of superior children. Biesecker states, “Isocrates extols unity among the Greeks, victory in war and excellence of lineage” (106).

“Longinus,” Method, and Chaos

I thought the reading by and about “Longinus” On the Sublime was really intriguing, especially because of his huge influence on European scholarship and literary criticism, two things I have encountered often in my education. I appreciated the fact that “in classical times the study of literature was not divorced from the study of rhetoric…and they went to literature to find material that could help their students…” (344). I personally think this still holds true today in many composition classrooms. The teaching of writing and analysis is not necessarily the same as the teaching of literature, but literature can be used to teach writing and analysis. 

I was specifically struck by something that “Longinus” said regarding method. The text states, “…it is method that is competent to provide and contribute quantities and appropriate occasions for everything, as well as perfect correctness in training and application” (347).  This reminded me of the discussion we were having in class on Wednesday February 6th regarding the usefulness of the humanities. We discussed the humanities as a way to teach empathy as well as critical thinking skill. I didn’t get a chance to express this because we changed topics, but I also think the humanities is useful for teaching theory as a methodology for practical use. For example, I used to privately tutor a nursing student who was getting her Bachelor’s degree, and in her upper division classes she had to look into various “theories of care.” These theories discussed personal autonomy, morality, and different ways to provide care based on these ideals. One that stuck with me was the Self-Care Deficit Theory developed by Dorothea E. Orem. She believed people should be self-reliant, and responsible for their care, as well as others in their family who need care, and that people are distinct individuals. She claimed that nursing is a form of action as well as an interaction between two or more people.  Helping my student understand this theory really opened my eyes to the fact that philosophy actually does have an impact on every day practical matters. People are going to react differently in different situations based on the beliefs and methodologies that they are taught and choose to follow.

 “Longinus” makes a bold claim when he says that method will dictate "appropriate occasions for everything” and “perfect correctness.” These sound like impossible achievements since perfection is not really possible. However, I do agree that method is the foundation for most important activities. The scientific method, for example, is extremely important factor in conducting valid research, and is followed by most reputable scientists. Music theory is another example of a practical application of method. Without it, music would be a bunch of chaotic noise. Business classes too teach theoretical frameworks by which organizations are run. 

“Longinus” also explains that a textbook should do two things: “explain what a subject is, and more important, that it should explain how and by what methods we can achieve it” (346). It is true that, to this day, most of us learn method from textbooks. Without them, we would be looking at a vast body of knowledge without knowing where to start, even with, or especially with, things like Google at our fingertips. “Longinus” disputes the idea that “natural products are very much weakened by being reduced to the bare bones of a textbook” in his assertion that method is necessary for execution of "everything" (347). The debate on whether education restricts or frees one’s mind still rages on to this day. For example, it can be difficult to be creative in the formulaic world of essay writing that academia insists upon. However, without some form of organization, it would be very difficult to follow most people’s train of thought in their writing. I believe one can be both creative and still follow a methodology. Because even with “the power to conceive great thoughts” one must still have “noble diction,” as “Longinus” puts it, to convey their point effectively (350). 

The Greeks Invented Everything

Ok so maybe they didn’t invent everything, but they certainly helped define many aspects of thought that we still use today.  

For example, I found it fascinating how much of our current system of teaching writing is based on these ancient Greek and Roman traditions. Aristotle discusses the three major types of rhetoric as being deliberative (political), forensic (legal) and epideictic (ceremonial). He discusses best practices for all of these that are still pertinent today.  One that really stuck with me was “people afflicted by sickness or poverty or love or thirst or any other unsatisfied desire are prone to anger and easily roused; especially against those who slight their present distress” (Bizzell 215). It so important to know your audience and if you are speaking to an audience full of people in poverty, it would certainly be bad form to insult the poor. Aristotle also defined the basic argumentative essay structure, although then it was applied to speeches. “A speech has two parts. You must state your case, and you must prove it…it cannot in any case have more than Introduction, Statement, Argument, and Epilogue” (240). This is basically the introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs with evidence, and conclusion format that we use every day in academia. Also, Cicero’s 5 cannons of rhetoric invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery are a major influence in modern studies of composition (Bizzell 35).

Our current US Trail system is based on the Sophist belief that knowledge relies on perception and is therefore flawed. Thus, absolutely truth is not available to human.  However, “probable knowledge” could be achieved by pitting opposing positions against one another and examining the arguments. It is very interesting to examine the different eras of Greek and Roman thought and how they dealt with the concept of truth. Plato felt that the Sophists ignored absolute truth for the sake of manipulating the truth for their own gain. This argument could be applied to today’s advertising and propaganda.

I was also surprised to learn that class struggle and how it goes hand in hand with public education is not a modern problem. As far back as 400 B.C.E aristocrats disagreed with the middle classes ability to purchase education for their children. They believed that leadership qualities came from noble birth and public education should focus on athletics and the military. It was not until Quintillian’s time around 35 C.E.  that grammar school began to be offered to indigent boys and girls. Women were also most excluded until this period as well. Women’s education was often justified by the idea that an educated mother would be a good influence on her male children. This is still reminiscent of problems in America today where the lower classes are encouraged to join the military and professions that involve women are often related to teaching or caring for children. 

What is Rhetoric?

Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric is as follows: “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion…rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why…it is not concerned with any special or definitive class of subjects” (Bizzell 181).  This is why rhetoric is such an open topic. As a rhetoric student for a number of years I’ve studied technical writing, law, digital writing, journalism, advertising, global English, the language of academia, the language of science, communications, debate, and business writing. Rhetoric essentially encompasses science, law, education and basically all correspondence. In some ways, this makes the subject of rhetoric seem immense and difficult to wrap one’s head around. Conversely, it gives the Rhetoric student freedom to concentrate on many different topics while still remaining under the umbrella of an English/humanities department. I don’t necessarily have to go to medical school to write a paper about the rhetoric of science. The rhetoric student questions all written communication and how it was presented and why it was presented that way. Even if one is unfamiliar with the traditional western concepts of rhetoric, this does not exempt them from having a purpose and an agenda when they write. Rhetoric often forces one to look at the structures of power that often dictate this presentation. Thus, in some ways, all knowledge is suspect based on the presenter of that knowledge and what their agenda is. This is an incredibly important skill, especially in today’s world of “fake news.” I hope to impart this ability, at least in a small way, to my future college freshmen I will be teaching. I want them to understand advertising and propaganda and how they are almost always been sold something, and to at least be aware of that in their daily lives.

Spring 2018-Grad Student Life

So it just felt right to revive this blog that I started back in fall of 2016 in Linda Overman's Amazing class at CSUN English 495: English Subject Matter. It was a class about learning to teach, but also about what it's like being a student. In my opinion, both are things that need to be explored by future educators. Now this blog will be refreshed and renewed for my English 651: Rhetoric and Composition Theory class at CSUN Spring 2018 with the illustrious Professor Iswari Pandey, Ph.D. Things are somewhat different in grad school than they were in undergrad, but in some ways things are a continuation of what I started during my Bachelor's Degree experience. Education and the teaching of writing will be my main focus as always. Enjoy this new chapter!

Creating Myth Vs Studying Myth

Question: Reflect on how your experience of creating a myth differs from and/ or enhances the study of myth? What did you learn from this experience that you could use in your future teaching?

I think that creating a myth was a really interesting experience and one that would be an awesome experience for any student. The idea of writing fiction can be a little scary for someone who has never done it before. Myth offers a selection of archetypal characters and situations that make the writing process a bit easier. This is why I think it is a good exercise for students. One can be creative while still having something familiar to branch off from. Personally, I found writing a myth really fun. Much like with the poem exercise that we did, I wanted to follow the traditional conventions of writing a myth to see if I could execute it properly. I think that rules can be a good thing when it comes to writing because they give you a direction to go in. Yes free writes are nice, but eventually people have to practice writing with a certain audience and purpose in mind. Whether one is writing a business letter, or a story, there has to be some guidelines to go by so it does not become a big mess. 

I found that the traditional rules of myth still leave you a lot of room to play.

 

I have always been found of Celtic mythology, I even took a class in it even though it was not required for my degree. Thus, I went with the Celtic/Welsh mythological goddess figure known as Rhiannon. Rhiannon was of course made famous by the Stevie Nicks song, but my love for her goes beyond that. (Though I do dig the Stevie Nicks song). I like that she is a strong, clever character more than a typical nurturing earth mother type. Since my group is presenting on the trickster character, I put Rhiannon in a tricky situation since I have some background in those.

 

I have not had a chance to write creatively in awhile, so I was surprised when the story just kind of started flowing. I used to write creatively for pleasure all the time, but I am so busy these days I never get a chance. Overall, I really enjoyed this experience.

Writing Poetry Vs. Writing About Poetry

Question: Reflect on how your experience of creating a myth differs from and/ or enhances the study of myth? What did you learn from this experience that you could use in your future teaching?

I think that creating a myth was a really interesting experience and one that would be an awesome experience for any student. The idea of writing fiction can be a little scary for someone who has never done it before. Myth offers a selection of archetypal characters and situations that make the writing process a bit easier. This is why I think it is a good exercise for students. One can be creative while still having something familiar to branch off from. Personally, I found writing a myth really fun. Much like with the poem exercise that we did, I wanted to follow the traditional conventions of writing a myth to see if I could execute it properly. I think that rules can be a good thing when it comes to writing because they give you a direction to go in. Yes free writes are nice, but eventually people have to practice writing with a certain audience and purpose in mind. Whether one is writing a business letter, or a story, there has to be some guidelines to go by so it does not become a big mess. 

I found that the traditional rules of myth still leave you a lot of room to play.

 

I have always been found of Celtic mythology, I even took a class in it even though it was not required for my degree. Thus, I went with the Celtic/Welsh mythological goddess figure known as Rhiannon. Rhiannon was of course made famous by the Stevie Nicks song, but my love for her goes beyond that. (Though I do dig the Stevie Nicks song). I like that she is a strong, clever character more than a typical nurturing earth mother type. Since my group is presenting on the trickster character, I put Rhiannon in a tricky situation since I have some background in those.

 

I have not had a chance to write creatively in awhile, so I was surprised when the story just kind of started flowing. I used to write creatively for pleasure all the time, but I am so busy these days I never get a chance. Overall, I really enjoyed this experience.

How Education and Entertainment go Hand-in-Hand

 
So this is my Blog dedicated to my educational escapades. I want to talk a bit about media in the classroom, but first, let me tell you a bit about me. I believe my background will help explain why I am adamant about media in the classroom, including the use of cellphones and laptops (which some teachers still resist).  As my profile indicates, I used to work in the entertainment industry. If you Google “Colette Claire” you will find my IMDB profile as well as YouTube videos of me interviewing rock and metal bands. I’ve done video and written journalistic work for a number of online publications, and currently write for Screamer Magazine in my spare time. I also sang in a rock band for a number of years.  

 

In the last few years though, I have primarily switched gears to becoming a college English professor. On this path, I am currently a senior at CSUN studying English Subject Matter and going into the Master's Program next year. To some, this may seem like a weird transition, but in reality everything I’ve done up to this point was all excellent preparation for teaching. It seems like many would-be teachers seem to forget that the job requires standing in front of a room full of people. This is especially ironic considering that most English majors, many of whom become English teachers, are super shy people generally speaking. If I hadn’t spent the previous eight years on camera in some form before I started teaching, I think I would have been too petrified to speak.

 

This is one reason, among many, why I believe that entertainment and education really go hand-in-hand, especially these days. Teachers can no longer just stand and lecture dryly in front of the classroom. They need to incorporate visuals, sound and anything else they can to make it exciting. This is what students are experiencing outside the classroom, so why should it be ignored inside of it? Also students need to be aware that “text” isn’t always words. Writing is about communication, but, then again, so is photography, and educators need to understand this.

 

 Of course, things can go awry when technology doesn’t work. If your entire lesson plan is based around showing the students a video and then it won’t play, you have a problem. It’s always good to have a backup plan and not completely rely on technology. I learned this the hard way as an Supplemental Instruction Leader at CSUN. (This is a fancy way of saying I taught a one-unit workshop twice a week for two years). However, if one does not acknowledge how ubiquitous the media is in our everyday lives in the classroom, it will seem like a glaring omission.