I have to say that I agree with a lot that Mark had to say about this piece. I found it frustrating that Gaonkar brings up rhetoric as having an epistemic function, but then says, at least to me, very little about it. He states he will negotiate the the question of epistemic function around the statement, "Thus, rhetoric is simultaneously empty of subject matter and overburdened with content" (197). He speaks of the "aim" of rhetorical inquiry, Kenneth Burke, Aristotle, and the transforming of conflicting opinions, but doesn't really get into rhetoric as a producer of knowledge. I believe that rhetoric does produce knowledge merely by provoking thought and discussion.
I also had problems with rhetoric simply a "supplement", or that it it is a formal empty discipline which is what causes many to refer to it as "mere" rhetoric. Not that I believe it can't hold a supplemental part, but I also believe that it can stand alone. I realize he goes on to say that twentieth century rhetoric can be read as a revolt against the supplementary tradition, but it doesn't seem to be enough to counter all he has said before.Goankar refers to Brian Vickers as a champion of rhetoric who notes that rhetoric has no subject matter of its own and functions a bit like a "service industry" causing territorial disputes with other disciplines. Rhetoric stands alone in its ability to speak whatever is being spoken, to fit into any specific type of discourse whether it be law, a social science, or literature. I find that fascinating in the same way I find people who can speak multiple languages fascinating.
On page 207 he is quoting an article by Nelson and Mcgill which states in part: "In our world, scholarship is rhetorical." Yet, this too leaves him unhappy with the world of rhetoricians. He states, "We are either dismissed out of hand, excommunicated, cast out from the realm of light and truth, or we are given the whole world all to ourselves and asked to preside over "the conversation of mankind" (207). For my part I think scholarship is rhetorical, but I think as those who study rhetoric perhaps it is what we feel, speak and write about rhetoric that will in the end give its place in academia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My response to this was a bit different, in that I see Rhetoric (and composition) as just that. The way we talk about composition is determined by a given composition in most cases, as is the way, historically, apparently, we've seen rhetoric. My question then, is why this is such a problem. It doesn't bother me personally to think of myself as a "supplementer", because, as Maggie puts it--it stands alone in its ability to speak whatever is spoken--I'd rather be "fascinating" than "specialized", I guess.
Post a Comment