Random Thoughts

Some random thoughts…

I appreciate how Hauser specifically connects rhetoric to the political. In this sense, Hauser’s chapter connects well with the Berlin book we just finished. How do opinion polls function as rhetoric, speaking for the public when the public remains largely separated and silent? For Hauser, a democratic government interested and open to change requires an involved and diverse public voice, but sadly, “we [. . .] must overcome the menace of difference that provokes distrust and the antidemocratic rhetorics of intolerance [. . .]” (10). Hauser also recognizes the social in ways similar to Berlin: “For democracy to be a functional form of government in a society of strangers, citizens must learn how to engage difference in a way that recognizes the individual and the group as a subject” (emphasis added) (10). Later, Hauser cautions against viewing the individual as separate from the social: “Subjectivity is not entirely a function of the self-contained individual. It also involves identity, which is inseparable from the social groups with which the individual identifies [. . .]” (10). Hauser also echoes the postmodern sentiments (though I’m not sure if Hauser uses the term “postmodern”) of Berlin, calling for a rhetoric open to change, a rhetoric that is not slavishly indebted to “the Athenian legacy” (3). Thus, Hauser’s chapter is radical in a quiet way. Anyone have ideas what Hauser’s radical, open-to-change, and social rhetoric might look like?

Gronbeck’s chapter nicely follows Hauser’s, as Gronbeck is especially interested in cyberculture and its potential for new rhetoric, a reconceptualiz[ation] of ‘political activity’” (18). He views—and I agree—the Internet as a powerful tool to take rhetoric out of the hands of those who hold power. However, I am not sure that I agree with Gronbeck’s fear of ultratargeting. Who is to say that accessing the Internet to read everything that one can about—to use Gronbeck’s example—abortion will necessarily lead to “driv[ing] other issues out of the electoral decision-making process”? (26). Finally, I would have liked to hear Gronbeck speak more specifically about rhetoric. His section titled “So What’s a Rhetorician to Do?” seems aptly titled.

Logan’s historical overview of the ways in which women of color have used identification and resistance as rhetorical devices is fascinating, but I was again wondering why this chapter didn’t push further. What is Logan’s advice or proposal for now, for the future? Did anyone else feel that this chapter didn’t really go beyond historical analysis?

Eberly’s piece isn’t shy about bias. She is not interested in adopting a neutral persona, as revealed in her President Bush jab: “Is the President an idiot?” (46). The President is an idiot, of course, but this line—among others—made me wonder about the sides we take in rhetoric. Hauser briefly addressed the problem of sides—binaries—when he suggested that opinion polls reduce complex issues to either/or thinking. I felt a bit lost in all the –ike discussion, so I hope that we can clear this up in class on Monday. I sensed that Eberly is arguing for rhetoric to be freed from its –ic-ike-ness because “Plato’s –ike ending removed from rhetoric’s reach politics, ethics, teaching, and discursive studies [. . .]” (49).

Finally, I thought about Mark while reading Simons’ chapter. Simons addresses public speaking, which was fascinating, since as we have said in class, rhetoric books oddly leave out public speaking a lot. However, I did have the feeling that Simons’ chapter was little more than an in depth explanation of TIF and how great it was. Did other people feel the same way? Perhaps Mark saw some “bigger picture” ideas to take away from this chapter. I was left with two impressions: TIF is awesome, and we should all try to implement a TIF-like forum.