Tuesday, September 26, 2006
0110001
Chapter 4 starts out by talking about the stasis approach. This, as you know, is a question that creates a division among people. Then a rhetorical act (argument) is used to mend the fracture.
In chapter 3 we learned that coercion uses a suppression of alternatives to direct peoples thinking, and reach a predetermined end. It goes on to explain how coercion is increasingly disguised as persuasion by creating a division and ultimatums. (the whole “do you believe in God or not”) This will eventually lead you to one conclusion.
It seems like ideas are being built up as fast as they are being torn apart. This explains why there are so many never ending debates on CNN, but does this apply to everyday situation we find ourselves in?
Chapter 3 showed how Bush carefully constructed his speech to get his point across. Then this chapter took it apart to show how it did not really hold up in some areas. I get the impression that we are continually coding and decoding meaning from things we only have the gist of. Relativism is beginning to look more and more plausible. If we can communicate across belief systems why do we need to code and decode?
In chapter 3 we learned that coercion uses a suppression of alternatives to direct peoples thinking, and reach a predetermined end. It goes on to explain how coercion is increasingly disguised as persuasion by creating a division and ultimatums. (the whole “do you believe in God or not”) This will eventually lead you to one conclusion.
It seems like ideas are being built up as fast as they are being torn apart. This explains why there are so many never ending debates on CNN, but does this apply to everyday situation we find ourselves in?
Chapter 3 showed how Bush carefully constructed his speech to get his point across. Then this chapter took it apart to show how it did not really hold up in some areas. I get the impression that we are continually coding and decoding meaning from things we only have the gist of. Relativism is beginning to look more and more plausible. If we can communicate across belief systems why do we need to code and decode?
"This year, we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead."
That is the second sentence of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. Bush wastes no time in applying what Ramage calls a "stasis" approach. Taken in social context, it is clear that the "decisive days" mentioned here refer to the time when the decision must be made as to whether or not the United States should go to war with Iraq. In his opening statement, Bush does not directly ask a "proposal question," but instead he implies one: "What should we do about this thing?" As Ramage mentions, the SOUA is not typically a time to try to suggest something as drastic and controversial as war. Yet Bush, from the very start of his address, is preparing his audience to digest a rhetorical act that will attempt to frame going to war with Iraq as the best possible answer to the looming question of "what should we do about this thing?"
What happened to choices B, C, and D?
Near the end of the speech, Bush comes off as either utterly confident, or profoundly ignorant:
"In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."
Perhaps "language is the only reality" is the basis for Bush's statements here? If he says it enough times, maybe it will become true? The idea of "ambient persuasion," I suppose, would be Ramage's take on that strategy. At play here is that notion that is people hear something said enough times, it takes on an air of truth. And Bush certainly needed the power of that air of truth, as even before the bombs were dropped, I don't think the state of this country in regards to the war could be described as one of "calm unity" or "confidence" with any reasonable degree of accuracy. It's difficult to say, exactly, how ignorant Bush was to this dissent, or if he was simply too caught up in his own priorities.
Either way, it's tragic.
That is the second sentence of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. Bush wastes no time in applying what Ramage calls a "stasis" approach. Taken in social context, it is clear that the "decisive days" mentioned here refer to the time when the decision must be made as to whether or not the United States should go to war with Iraq. In his opening statement, Bush does not directly ask a "proposal question," but instead he implies one: "What should we do about this thing?" As Ramage mentions, the SOUA is not typically a time to try to suggest something as drastic and controversial as war. Yet Bush, from the very start of his address, is preparing his audience to digest a rhetorical act that will attempt to frame going to war with Iraq as the best possible answer to the looming question of "what should we do about this thing?"
What happened to choices B, C, and D?
Near the end of the speech, Bush comes off as either utterly confident, or profoundly ignorant:
"In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."
Perhaps "language is the only reality" is the basis for Bush's statements here? If he says it enough times, maybe it will become true? The idea of "ambient persuasion," I suppose, would be Ramage's take on that strategy. At play here is that notion that is people hear something said enough times, it takes on an air of truth. And Bush certainly needed the power of that air of truth, as even before the bombs were dropped, I don't think the state of this country in regards to the war could be described as one of "calm unity" or "confidence" with any reasonable degree of accuracy. It's difficult to say, exactly, how ignorant Bush was to this dissent, or if he was simply too caught up in his own priorities.
Either way, it's tragic.
Monday, September 25, 2006
pending.
Ok so first, I'm going to admit right now that I have not been in school mode lately. Not an excuse... just a statement. So this is coming kinda late. Bear with me.
My mind wasn't in gear trying to read Rhertoric. Previously I really just skimmed the chapters and grabbed the examples, but really didn't read into what they might mean. So I decided this weekend to finally seclude myself from all outside noise (I'm an I-pod aholic... so this was hard for me, believe me) and get into the book - and just read til' my head exploded. (It came close, believe me.) But I am glad to say that by really really reading the book, I started to enjoy Ramage's whole style; and relate to his examples.
Chapter 4wise, I am not going to state too much. I'm really focusing on Resemblance and how it ties into rhetoric and the outcome of the audience perception. Like in the SOUA - how they compare Vietnam and Iraq and show how nobody really wants to compare the two - due to the unfavorable outcome of Vietnam, drawing any connotation between the two would definately cause it to become negative; which could definately harm the support from the audience. (Audience was mentioned in Chapter 2, therefore coming to this conclusion made me really feel as if I was starting to lightly grasp rhetoric. Yay.) Chapter 3 was helpful in the sense that I could see how characteristics and identity had influence with persuasion; and vice versa. Society wise, as well as personally when I 've seen myself practice it. Example: I was offered to a concert, but the same day I was previously offered a well paying just-for-that-day job. Lets just say that I need the money. No If's; And's or But's but I still heard myself over the phone say, "Yeaaa! I am SO going!!" I thought about it and realized that if i was a "Serious Person" - I'd be at that job, making a lot of easy money. Paying for food, and books (yes Im still getting books.) and the necessities. But the chance to be spontaneous, the one who doesnt want to look at the map, go with the list, etc. etc.... well theres the Rhetoric person. A "Lover of Experience."
So there it is. My conception on rhetoric so far. Feel free to comment, and I won't hold it against you if you think I am utterly crazy. Ha!
As for the paper? I've got my idea started and it well into the works... just got to find a way to wrap it all up. I'll share tomorrow. Right now I'm still trying to figure out my Haloween costume. :o)
My mind wasn't in gear trying to read Rhertoric. Previously I really just skimmed the chapters and grabbed the examples, but really didn't read into what they might mean. So I decided this weekend to finally seclude myself from all outside noise (I'm an I-pod aholic... so this was hard for me, believe me) and get into the book - and just read til' my head exploded. (It came close, believe me.) But I am glad to say that by really really reading the book, I started to enjoy Ramage's whole style; and relate to his examples.
Chapter 4wise, I am not going to state too much. I'm really focusing on Resemblance and how it ties into rhetoric and the outcome of the audience perception. Like in the SOUA - how they compare Vietnam and Iraq and show how nobody really wants to compare the two - due to the unfavorable outcome of Vietnam, drawing any connotation between the two would definately cause it to become negative; which could definately harm the support from the audience. (Audience was mentioned in Chapter 2, therefore coming to this conclusion made me really feel as if I was starting to lightly grasp rhetoric. Yay.) Chapter 3 was helpful in the sense that I could see how characteristics and identity had influence with persuasion; and vice versa. Society wise, as well as personally when I 've seen myself practice it. Example: I was offered to a concert, but the same day I was previously offered a well paying just-for-that-day job. Lets just say that I need the money. No If's; And's or But's but I still heard myself over the phone say, "Yeaaa! I am SO going!!" I thought about it and realized that if i was a "Serious Person" - I'd be at that job, making a lot of easy money. Paying for food, and books (yes Im still getting books.) and the necessities. But the chance to be spontaneous, the one who doesnt want to look at the map, go with the list, etc. etc.... well theres the Rhetoric person. A "Lover of Experience."
So there it is. My conception on rhetoric so far. Feel free to comment, and I won't hold it against you if you think I am utterly crazy. Ha!
As for the paper? I've got my idea started and it well into the works... just got to find a way to wrap it all up. I'll share tomorrow. Right now I'm still trying to figure out my Haloween costume. :o)
My Reaction to the SOUA
As I was reading the 2003 SOUA, I noticed that I was responding in a rather cynical way. Everything I read was being "yeah-righted" in my head. Once I realized that I was doing it, I tried to examine the reasons that made me so cynical towards anything the leader of our country says. It wasn't like I was pulling up specifics to support my cynicism, it was more like...feelings. And I realized, this could be the result of that "ambient persuasion" that Ramage discussed in Chapter 4. I am not a heavy follower of politics, although maybe I should be. But I do hear things, like opinions, debates, and issues, through the media and other people. Perhaps these things have created, through repetition and time, opinions in my mind that affected me while I was reading the SOUA. For example, the part where Bush proposes enviromental reforms got a huge "YEA RIGHT" from me. Maybe that is a result of hearing, over time, different instances where he did not support enviromental reforms. That could be one way of looking at ambient persuasion. Then again, I could also be cynical because the speech came off as rather propagandic to me. Bush spent a seemingly puny amount of the speech addressing national concerns like health care, homelessness, unemployment, and taxation. It seemed like he threw in these issues at the beginning to kind of "get them over with" before he moved on to the really important issue of the day: Iraq. Throughout the majority of his section on the Iraqi threat he fails to present the other side of the story. He hardly ever discusses the negative aspects of war, and there are plenty, but stresses the need to act. He does not present alternatives to war. Seems like propaganda to me. He made war sound so inevitable, that I wondered if the American people ever really had a choice in the matter.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
State of.......the Agenda
Upon reading Ramage's chapter four it is apparent that the rhetorical purpose of the 2003 State of the Union was to bend the minds of television viewers. Whether the Bush Administration was acting honestly or deceptively the agenda was clear, "We're going to invade Iraq, period" No matter how insignificant or cloudy the links between Iraq & 9/11(terrorism) were, Bush was steadfast in goal of democracy in Iraq. Ramage mentions "petition is reputation" certainly holds true with the administrations continous barrage of reasons to invade Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction phrase was repeated ad nauseam to the American people and the threat of mobile nuclear weapons was a frightening thought. To specifically address "Stases" & "Toulmin's schema" here are my thoughts...I found Ramage using Toulmin to breakdown the 2003 SOUA very insightful and systematic. The use of the Claim, Data, Warrant, Backing. Qualifiers & Conditions of Rebuttal very similar to that of a debate format. When discussing the Claim, etc a clear picture of the speech is formed while the underlying problem with Iraq is stated as well. The SOUA contains absolutely no Qualifiers or alternative measures that could be possibly taken when the case for war was made. Ramage remarks, "The one element of the president's argument that most clearly marks it as propagandistic is the virtual absence of qualifiers" pg 130. President Bush & his administration were steadfast in their goal to invade Iraq and were not interested in alternatives or taking what they felt to be unecessary chances with WMD. Ramage's discussion of Stases leaves something to be desired. While he asked several questions and had the corresponding response I felt these points were long winded and less than clear to the reader. So hopefully during class I will have a better grasp of what Stases is.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
A true American Hero
A notice, to start: This is not my official, SOUA-tackling blog post for this week. Although it is on a related note. I was just watching the clip again of Stephen Colbert's speech at this year's White House Correspondence Dinner, and for any of you who haven't seen it yet, it is an absolute must.
Part one is on YouTube here, and the other 2 parts are linked from there.
"Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
This is a masterful example of rhetoric, wit, and insane boldness. To stand right in front of the president and say those things, all the while maintaining his faux-Conservative persona, is absolutely brilliant. I also found a very interesting blog post that discusses the ways in which Colbert's speech was brushed off by the media, which is rather scary. But you really have to admire Stephen's courage on this one.
Part one is on YouTube here, and the other 2 parts are linked from there.
"Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
This is a masterful example of rhetoric, wit, and insane boldness. To stand right in front of the president and say those things, all the while maintaining his faux-Conservative persona, is absolutely brilliant. I also found a very interesting blog post that discusses the ways in which Colbert's speech was brushed off by the media, which is rather scary. But you really have to admire Stephen's courage on this one.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Hey all. I didn't get a chance to post on the blog before yesterdays class, but I'm glad that I didn't. After class I formed some perspective on the book--Chapter 3 mainly--as well as the paper we will be writing in the next week.
I'll start off with the book. Nearly everyone in class who stated that Chapter 3 was easier to read, well I DISAGREE... Kidding. It was much simpler. It didn't feel like we were having to filter through endless ideas and theories, all the while trying to manage through the complex language that Ramage was also hurdling towards us. Thanks, buddy (Ramage). He simplied his chapter with just a few ideas that came to the foreground of our minds: Pluralism vs. Relativism; Coericion vs. Pure Persuasion; and Propaganda vs. Literature. Those are basically the three main elements of chapter 3.
What I really want to focus on in my narrative journey is the whole concept of Propanganda and propagandists. That's the subject where I felt I started to understand what Ramage was trying to say. Ramage states, "While propagandists may sincerely believe that the doctrine or product they promote will best serve their audience--and one of the crucial differences between propagandists and advertisers is the former's sincere belief in the cause--their first commitment is to the doctrine or product rather than to the happiness of their audience." (pg. 77)
This deception holds through with many different areas in life. Salesman do it. Television does it. Policiticians do it. Heck, our teachers might even do it half the time--when they promote a book of theirs, or a piece of work that they do. (It actually happened the previous class prior to this one!!) The dynamic of propanganda is ambiguous, because it can go many different ways. Some use it for their own personal benefit, while others can use it in a matter that can profit the good of a nation.
As far as the paper assignment goes, well, I like the unorthodox approach. I would much rather write something that can be entertaining and academically engaging, then something that is...just academically engaging. haha. This allows us to use our creative minds, our humor, our sense of brilliance, to create something that is compelling to read. I know all of us are capable of doing just that. Thanks, Teach.
I'll start off with the book. Nearly everyone in class who stated that Chapter 3 was easier to read, well I DISAGREE... Kidding. It was much simpler. It didn't feel like we were having to filter through endless ideas and theories, all the while trying to manage through the complex language that Ramage was also hurdling towards us. Thanks, buddy (Ramage). He simplied his chapter with just a few ideas that came to the foreground of our minds: Pluralism vs. Relativism; Coericion vs. Pure Persuasion; and Propaganda vs. Literature. Those are basically the three main elements of chapter 3.
What I really want to focus on in my narrative journey is the whole concept of Propanganda and propagandists. That's the subject where I felt I started to understand what Ramage was trying to say. Ramage states, "While propagandists may sincerely believe that the doctrine or product they promote will best serve their audience--and one of the crucial differences between propagandists and advertisers is the former's sincere belief in the cause--their first commitment is to the doctrine or product rather than to the happiness of their audience." (pg. 77)
This deception holds through with many different areas in life. Salesman do it. Television does it. Policiticians do it. Heck, our teachers might even do it half the time--when they promote a book of theirs, or a piece of work that they do. (It actually happened the previous class prior to this one!!) The dynamic of propanganda is ambiguous, because it can go many different ways. Some use it for their own personal benefit, while others can use it in a matter that can profit the good of a nation.
As far as the paper assignment goes, well, I like the unorthodox approach. I would much rather write something that can be entertaining and academically engaging, then something that is...just academically engaging. haha. This allows us to use our creative minds, our humor, our sense of brilliance, to create something that is compelling to read. I know all of us are capable of doing just that. Thanks, Teach.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
My short post
As I commented earlier, I'm interested in religious rhetoric and its affect on society. I'm thinking of focusing on one or three areas: 1) Religion's role in American politics. Ex: The president's use of religious terms during secular speeches to the nation, compared with a historical perspective of previous presidents and their own ways of being secular or religious in public speech. 2) International religion. Ex: Pope offending Muslims, Mother Theresa's legacy, Middle Eastern conflicts and their affects on the world's societies. 3) Religion in Hollywood. Ex: Tom Cruise and Scientology, Madonna and Kabala, etc.
The way each figure presents their identity as a religious/celebrity figure is their own rhetorical identity, which I think would be an interesting subject.
The way each figure presents their identity as a religious/celebrity figure is their own rhetorical identity, which I think would be an interesting subject.
3 down; 3 to go
It is a bit upsetting that we are now half way through Rhetoric, but think not of the what is lost. Look forward to the three remaining chapters (all 110 pages) and the mind blowing Ramage rhetoric left.
I have to agree that chapter three was a better read than the others. It was full of examples that helped clarify what he was talking about in the other chapters. I found the side bar to be a useful tool since it provided real life evidence of rhetoric. I wish Ramage would have been there, at the State of The Union Address, to expose Bush and all of his war propaganda. Maybe he could have saved us from taking the war out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. But I suppose that hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to analyze an emotionally charged speech after the fact.
For my paper I would like to focus on one point brought up in chapter 3. I am going to research and write about the “continuum of persuasive practices”. (75) To do this I will try to find examples of each type of persuasion—propaganda, legal reasoning, literary texts—and compare them and their author’s intent. I am hoping to find specific traits in each so that they become easier to spot and understand. We are bombarded with a range of persuasive tactics on a daily basis, if we are able to differentiate them we will be better equipped to make more informed decisions.
I have to agree that chapter three was a better read than the others. It was full of examples that helped clarify what he was talking about in the other chapters. I found the side bar to be a useful tool since it provided real life evidence of rhetoric. I wish Ramage would have been there, at the State of The Union Address, to expose Bush and all of his war propaganda. Maybe he could have saved us from taking the war out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. But I suppose that hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to analyze an emotionally charged speech after the fact.
For my paper I would like to focus on one point brought up in chapter 3. I am going to research and write about the “continuum of persuasive practices”. (75) To do this I will try to find examples of each type of persuasion—propaganda, legal reasoning, literary texts—and compare them and their author’s intent. I am hoping to find specific traits in each so that they become easier to spot and understand. We are bombarded with a range of persuasive tactics on a daily basis, if we are able to differentiate them we will be better equipped to make more informed decisions.
Propaganda and the Role of the Audience?
Hello everyone!
I wanted to start off by saying that I am enjoying this book much more now that I got through Chapter One. I thought Chapter Three was easier to read and understand and had clearer points.
Anyway, I think I might have somewhat of an idea for this first paper, but I'm not really sure what direction I want to go in with it, I guess.
I really liked the section in Chapter Three about advertising and propaganda. Ramage says, "Near propaganda, thus, one might position marketing, advertising, salesmanship, talk radio call-in shows, political campaign speeches, and the like..." (75). This got me thinking about all the encounters we have everyday with advertisements, television, and political speeches where we, as a collective audience, simple "buy into" what we're told.
Then, about a page later, Ramage adds, "...subscribing to the propagandist's ends seems the surest way for the audience to act in the name of their beliefs. Which is why propagandists and advertisers study their audiences so acutely, reading and perofrming extensive research, forming "focus groups' to test appeals, conducting opinion polls, and so forth; as a general rule, the more to the left a persuasive activity is situated, the more thoroughly and scientifically do the practitioners study their audiences, not so as to learn from them but so as to find out how best to take advantage of them" (77).
The entire section on propaganda, especially the last quote from page 77 made me think about propaganda in terms of the audience who receives it and subscribes to it. I'm hoping to talk about propaganda from the audience/general public's perspective and discuss their role in some way, since without a subscribing audience, there would be no propaganda.
I wanted to start off by saying that I am enjoying this book much more now that I got through Chapter One. I thought Chapter Three was easier to read and understand and had clearer points.
Anyway, I think I might have somewhat of an idea for this first paper, but I'm not really sure what direction I want to go in with it, I guess.
I really liked the section in Chapter Three about advertising and propaganda. Ramage says, "Near propaganda, thus, one might position marketing, advertising, salesmanship, talk radio call-in shows, political campaign speeches, and the like..." (75). This got me thinking about all the encounters we have everyday with advertisements, television, and political speeches where we, as a collective audience, simple "buy into" what we're told.
Then, about a page later, Ramage adds, "...subscribing to the propagandist's ends seems the surest way for the audience to act in the name of their beliefs. Which is why propagandists and advertisers study their audiences so acutely, reading and perofrming extensive research, forming "focus groups' to test appeals, conducting opinion polls, and so forth; as a general rule, the more to the left a persuasive activity is situated, the more thoroughly and scientifically do the practitioners study their audiences, not so as to learn from them but so as to find out how best to take advantage of them" (77).
The entire section on propaganda, especially the last quote from page 77 made me think about propaganda in terms of the audience who receives it and subscribes to it. I'm hoping to talk about propaganda from the audience/general public's perspective and discuss their role in some way, since without a subscribing audience, there would be no propaganda.
The It's Not Really A Blog, Blog
Hey all,
I'm assuming we don't have to blog this week because we haven't be given any info on the paper that is due. Also, I read the other blogs for this week and there don't seem to be too many. I suppose if I was overly concerned on the subject I could have e-mailed our professor... Alright, just incase we do have to blog I will say this: Discussing Ramage, and with what I learned in our last class, I would say that it's easier to discuss his book than it is to read it. It's not too bad though, I've read worse. And I'll end on that positive note. Toodles.
I'm assuming we don't have to blog this week because we haven't be given any info on the paper that is due. Also, I read the other blogs for this week and there don't seem to be too many. I suppose if I was overly concerned on the subject I could have e-mailed our professor... Alright, just incase we do have to blog I will say this: Discussing Ramage, and with what I learned in our last class, I would say that it's easier to discuss his book than it is to read it. It's not too bad though, I've read worse. And I'll end on that positive note. Toodles.
Rhetoric and Persuasion vs. The Audience
Ok, I think I finally know what I want to write this first paper on.
In Chapter 3, Ramage talks about Rhetoric and Persuasion. SO, I think I want to write about how the audience gets sucked in to rhetoric because of propogandists, advertisers, lawyers, religious figures, authors, family, teachers... or anyone for that matter. I also want to get into how an audience can be "hurt" or misinformed by the use of rhetoric.
I don't know... it's hard to explain what I'm going to write about because I haven't written anything yet, and my paper will probably go in a completely different direction. I think that everytime I write a paper with one intention in mind, I come up with something better that I hadn't considered before writing. ...yeeaahhhh.
Anyway, on page 80, Ramage writes, "Rhetoric is always concerned with the effectiveness of arguments at persuading audiences, always operates under the assumption that people construct arguments in order to seek advantage of some sort and that ineffective arguments that fail to persuade audiences are more often deserving of judicious amendment than unswerving loyalty...." There's more to it but I really don't feel like typing it all out, but that's the paragraph that kind of made me come up with my paper idea.
Yeah, so I don't know if I've made any sense, but at least I'm starting to think about something to write about. I want to try to find another book or two that talks about rhetoric in this sense... and maybe they can explain it in a slightly less confusing way.
~Dani*
In Chapter 3, Ramage talks about Rhetoric and Persuasion. SO, I think I want to write about how the audience gets sucked in to rhetoric because of propogandists, advertisers, lawyers, religious figures, authors, family, teachers... or anyone for that matter. I also want to get into how an audience can be "hurt" or misinformed by the use of rhetoric.
I don't know... it's hard to explain what I'm going to write about because I haven't written anything yet, and my paper will probably go in a completely different direction. I think that everytime I write a paper with one intention in mind, I come up with something better that I hadn't considered before writing. ...yeeaahhhh.
Anyway, on page 80, Ramage writes, "Rhetoric is always concerned with the effectiveness of arguments at persuading audiences, always operates under the assumption that people construct arguments in order to seek advantage of some sort and that ineffective arguments that fail to persuade audiences are more often deserving of judicious amendment than unswerving loyalty...." There's more to it but I really don't feel like typing it all out, but that's the paragraph that kind of made me come up with my paper idea.
Yeah, so I don't know if I've made any sense, but at least I'm starting to think about something to write about. I want to try to find another book or two that talks about rhetoric in this sense... and maybe they can explain it in a slightly less confusing way.
~Dani*
Chapter 3 ... Much better
My wish came true in chapter 3. Even though chapter 1 was an introduction without explanation and had us scratching our heads a bit, Ramage knew his readers would eventually understand what he was saying as they read the following chapters. The reading now feels as if it's falling in to place as Ramage refers back to the first two chapters. They make more sense now than they did last week, just as I hoped they would. That's not to say the reading is easier. He uses heavy words that I have to look up in the dictionary, but that's O.K., at least I'm building my vocabulary in the process.
About the paper ... I think I need a little direction in that area, but I'm still going to float an idea with you all so I know if I need to come up with a completely different idea or if this is a good start.
Ramage says that rhetoric is more pluralistic, emphasizing our commonalities, than it is relativistic, focusing on our differences. This reminded me of a scene that stuck with me in the movie "Take the Lead" (the dancing movie based on a true story with Antonio Banderas). The principal of an inner city high school needed someone to take over detention at the end of the day. Through a series of circumstances, Pierre Dulaine (Banderas) ends up in charge of the detention, teaching the mostly Hispanic and African-American students how to dance ballroom, the tango, foxtrot, etc. The principal eventually wants to get rid of him because in essence, this is a rich, white person's hobby that will do nothing to help her students. She is focusing on the simple fact that her students are a "different" color and background than the typical ballroom dancer. Dulaine takes the pluralistic side of this issue and argues that all kids want and need the same things out of life, regardless of their backgrounds. They need to feel as if they have a purpose. He saw that even though these kids' dancing style was different from what he teaches in his classroom, they are still dancing. Using this argument, he is able to persuade the principal to allow him to continue giving the detention students dancing lessons.
Of course this idea needs to be developed more, but it's a start. I welcome any constructive criticism anyone is willing to give.
About the paper ... I think I need a little direction in that area, but I'm still going to float an idea with you all so I know if I need to come up with a completely different idea or if this is a good start.
Ramage says that rhetoric is more pluralistic, emphasizing our commonalities, than it is relativistic, focusing on our differences. This reminded me of a scene that stuck with me in the movie "Take the Lead" (the dancing movie based on a true story with Antonio Banderas). The principal of an inner city high school needed someone to take over detention at the end of the day. Through a series of circumstances, Pierre Dulaine (Banderas) ends up in charge of the detention, teaching the mostly Hispanic and African-American students how to dance ballroom, the tango, foxtrot, etc. The principal eventually wants to get rid of him because in essence, this is a rich, white person's hobby that will do nothing to help her students. She is focusing on the simple fact that her students are a "different" color and background than the typical ballroom dancer. Dulaine takes the pluralistic side of this issue and argues that all kids want and need the same things out of life, regardless of their backgrounds. They need to feel as if they have a purpose. He saw that even though these kids' dancing style was different from what he teaches in his classroom, they are still dancing. Using this argument, he is able to persuade the principal to allow him to continue giving the detention students dancing lessons.
Of course this idea needs to be developed more, but it's a start. I welcome any constructive criticism anyone is willing to give.
Thanks!
Dawn
We are the dollars and cents
For the upcoming paper, I aim to examine what Ramage suggests about, and the role rhetoric plays in, the following ideas:
- How much of an effect do cultural readymades have on our spending habits?
- Is our entire materialist culture founded on this idea?
- What would the effect be if we transcended the need to fit into a cultural readymade?
I'm particularly interested in that last question. I'm wondering if our society would be generally more content without feeling the pressure to have the items that fit a certain lifestyle. On an NPR program recently, they discussed the notion of whether money can buy happiness. A bit of research that was mentioned was a finding that the difference between making $5,000 a year and $50,000 was related to a significant difference in "happiness." But that income difference is simply what it takes to fulfill basic needs. When it comes to someone making $50,000 a year versus someone making $500,000 a year, there is very little difference in their reported satisfaction with life. Therefore, the rhetoric of consumerism is misleading. I hope to unpack Ramage's notion of cultural readymades, and examine the rhetoric that turns a need for identity into purchases.
Basically I'm worried that I can't afford to be cool. jk rofl. But really, I think there's something pretty rediculous going on here regarding the factors that cause us to spend money, or even want it in the first place as much as we do. And I'm not saying I'm not a victim of it, I just want to better understand it.
- How much of an effect do cultural readymades have on our spending habits?
- Is our entire materialist culture founded on this idea?
- What would the effect be if we transcended the need to fit into a cultural readymade?
I'm particularly interested in that last question. I'm wondering if our society would be generally more content without feeling the pressure to have the items that fit a certain lifestyle. On an NPR program recently, they discussed the notion of whether money can buy happiness. A bit of research that was mentioned was a finding that the difference between making $5,000 a year and $50,000 was related to a significant difference in "happiness." But that income difference is simply what it takes to fulfill basic needs. When it comes to someone making $50,000 a year versus someone making $500,000 a year, there is very little difference in their reported satisfaction with life. Therefore, the rhetoric of consumerism is misleading. I hope to unpack Ramage's notion of cultural readymades, and examine the rhetoric that turns a need for identity into purchases.
Basically I'm worried that I can't afford to be cool. jk rofl. But really, I think there's something pretty rediculous going on here regarding the factors that cause us to spend money, or even want it in the first place as much as we do. And I'm not saying I'm not a victim of it, I just want to better understand it.
Paper??
Hi everyone. I am not sure what I want to write for my paper because I don't know what the paper is about yet! I am assuming Ramage and rhetoric, of course. Maybe we will find out tonight in class, and then I can elaborate.
I thought that this chapter was soooo much easier to understand. I could actually highlight and take notes! Yay! If we do get to choose any concepts from Rhetoric to write about in our papers, I would choose those from Chapter 3, concepts like relativism and pluralism, ethos, and the rhetorical situation.
I also noticed that in this chapter, I am beginning to see places throughout the book where Ramage is practicing his own rhetoric. When he talks about "self-interference", I realized that he did that in Chapter 1, with his anti-rhetoric spokesperson. Also, he says that authors of literary texts must present some contrasting ideas, and he does, with the use of "serious people" and "rhetorical people".
In this chapter after he talked about the continuum of persuasion, and I realized that his book would fall under literary texts area, because Ramage is practicing a type of persuasion. He wants his audience to believe or at least consider that rhetoric is useful and necessary in today's world for sorting out problems and expressing ourselves.
So Hopefully we can do our papers on any chapter, because this one was much smoother sailing for me than the first two! (Not saying that it was too easy; I mean that I just wasn't pulling my hair out in frustration this time!)
--Devon
I thought that this chapter was soooo much easier to understand. I could actually highlight and take notes! Yay! If we do get to choose any concepts from Rhetoric to write about in our papers, I would choose those from Chapter 3, concepts like relativism and pluralism, ethos, and the rhetorical situation.
I also noticed that in this chapter, I am beginning to see places throughout the book where Ramage is practicing his own rhetoric. When he talks about "self-interference", I realized that he did that in Chapter 1, with his anti-rhetoric spokesperson. Also, he says that authors of literary texts must present some contrasting ideas, and he does, with the use of "serious people" and "rhetorical people".
In this chapter after he talked about the continuum of persuasion, and I realized that his book would fall under literary texts area, because Ramage is practicing a type of persuasion. He wants his audience to believe or at least consider that rhetoric is useful and necessary in today's world for sorting out problems and expressing ourselves.
So Hopefully we can do our papers on any chapter, because this one was much smoother sailing for me than the first two! (Not saying that it was too easy; I mean that I just wasn't pulling my hair out in frustration this time!)
--Devon
Monday, September 18, 2006
Ramage Moving Forward..
As I consider how my paper is going to shape up, it was nice to see Ramage move away from some of his previously abstract thoughts and targets recognizable examples in Chapter 2 some of which we discussed. However it seems that Ramage felt the need to delve back into the frey of Rhetoricspeak with words such as solipsism and chimerical. This certainly does not help the reader's understanding of the text...but knowing Ramage is probably wasnt intended to. In my paper I will probably address relativism versus pluralism in some form and the interesting differences/similarities between coercion and persuasion. The examination of propaganda is definately relevant in today's world climate and will try to look at its many uses and Ramage's belief about how it is used. I also hope to address Ramage's section-"Act as Medium:..." on page 86 and continues where he takes on the job of analyzing President Bush's SOUA and its implications for war. I found Ramage's "call and response" to be quite interesting and the insincerity of the mentioned event quite true. Ramage is right on point when he disects Bush's persuasive argument by stressing the potential dangers the United States could face. I think President Bush was not vilified by the American people during the speech due to the thought of another September 11th type attack. Any sliver of doubt regarding our nation's safety struck a cord with many Americans. Examining Ramage's points on ethos would also be worthy discuss in my paper. A poignant question to entertain: Was Bush practicing propaganda or was the intelligence to blame?, an honest evaluation will point to at minimum a substantial use of propaganda by the administration(Karl Rove & Cheney). Ramage evidently decided to make the second half of this chapter much more interesting and truly applicable to current rhetorical items. I found the political discussion to be a nice relief from some of his prior rants. His mention of the audience may be one of the most important points he makes throughout as without an audience that buys into your expression the content is meaningless. The "axis of evil" regarding N. Korea and Iraq is quite a compelling choice of words due to the following.......axis-brings to mind our enemies in WWII-Nazi Germany, Japan,etc and evil-used at the time was tired directly to terrorism, thus providing a powerful message to the American people. So overall I hope to use aspects of Ramage's relativism/pluralism, propaganda/ethos and more.
Chris
Chris
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Ramage and Mother Theresa
I'm still reading Ramage, but i just wanted to quickly say that Ramage has some very good points on the topic of identity, but he is falling into the same trap of the essentialists. Not all identity is based on rhetoric. Another channel is action. I have never read anything written by Mother Theresa, but I think I definitely have an impression of her identity.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Rhetorical Procrastinator
Hey all. I'm Dani Karaszkiewicz (you wish you could pronounce that!). I'm a junior Professional Writing major, Literature minor, Procrastinator extraordinaire... and I think I fell asleep at least three times trying to get through this book.
Although I am a fan of definitions, I am okay with Ramage's lack of one, and I'm glad he told us that we aren't getting one. However, I am not okay with this book. For the most part, I don't get it, and I had trouble get into it.
"Little wonder that rhetoric has become the refuge or last resort for those seeking to justify the unjustifiable or to render the impossible plausible." ...what? I've read that statement over and over and I think I die a little inside every time I try to comprehend it...
Maybe one of the only things I did get in the reading was the "Rhetoric panders to the masses" section in chapter one and the sentence "What matters is not the truth of a statement but its effect on an audience." Also, Ramage's examples in this section about selling traveler's insurance to an audience who believes the world is flat incase they were to sail over the edge of the earth... yeah, I would totally do that. But the bigger thing is that I actually understand what rhetoric means in that sense.
Alright, so I don't know if I fell asleep through the rest of the chapter, or if I just didn't grasp it... but either way I'm HOPING that chapter 2 will help clear some things up... but I have my doubts.
And finally, onto the kairos...
"...the urgency and currency of a situation demands action in the form of lively rhetorical exchanges about an issue. But if an issue has lost its immediacy, then the rhetor must not only deliberate the issue but make a case for the issue's relevance." Thank you, Crowley and Hawhee, for putting it in a way that I understand. This was a much easier read than the book. By far.
Okay, I'm done with my first post on here... now I have to get that 2-3 page paper done...
Although I am a fan of definitions, I am okay with Ramage's lack of one, and I'm glad he told us that we aren't getting one. However, I am not okay with this book. For the most part, I don't get it, and I had trouble get into it.
"Little wonder that rhetoric has become the refuge or last resort for those seeking to justify the unjustifiable or to render the impossible plausible." ...what? I've read that statement over and over and I think I die a little inside every time I try to comprehend it...
Maybe one of the only things I did get in the reading was the "Rhetoric panders to the masses" section in chapter one and the sentence "What matters is not the truth of a statement but its effect on an audience." Also, Ramage's examples in this section about selling traveler's insurance to an audience who believes the world is flat incase they were to sail over the edge of the earth... yeah, I would totally do that. But the bigger thing is that I actually understand what rhetoric means in that sense.
Alright, so I don't know if I fell asleep through the rest of the chapter, or if I just didn't grasp it... but either way I'm HOPING that chapter 2 will help clear some things up... but I have my doubts.
And finally, onto the kairos...
"...the urgency and currency of a situation demands action in the form of lively rhetorical exchanges about an issue. But if an issue has lost its immediacy, then the rhetor must not only deliberate the issue but make a case for the issue's relevance." Thank you, Crowley and Hawhee, for putting it in a way that I understand. This was a much easier read than the book. By far.
Okay, I'm done with my first post on here... now I have to get that 2-3 page paper done...
Rhetoric is fun.
Greetings. My name is Aimee and I’m a junior writing major with a minor in advertising.
I’m slightly outraged as I read/reflect on the posts the class has written concerning Ramage’s text. He tells us on the first page he is not going to give us a concrete definition of rhetoric, so why fight it?
I was psyched to find Ramage’s approach to rhetoric is abstract, open to interpretation, full of contradictions, and a bit stream of consciousness. It’s a great text for the classroom because it’s highly debatable. As an added bonus, it’s nearly impossible to give incorrect answers.
I think the reading might have been a bit more interesting had it included more quotes such as “You never step in the same river twice” and “You step in one river, you’ve stepped in ‘em all.” You can agree with either under various circumstance, and in doing so, help shape your identity.
Until next blog...
I’m slightly outraged as I read/reflect on the posts the class has written concerning Ramage’s text. He tells us on the first page he is not going to give us a concrete definition of rhetoric, so why fight it?
I was psyched to find Ramage’s approach to rhetoric is abstract, open to interpretation, full of contradictions, and a bit stream of consciousness. It’s a great text for the classroom because it’s highly debatable. As an added bonus, it’s nearly impossible to give incorrect answers.
I think the reading might have been a bit more interesting had it included more quotes such as “You never step in the same river twice” and “You step in one river, you’ve stepped in ‘em all.” You can agree with either under various circumstance, and in doing so, help shape your identity.
Until next blog...
rhetor-a-huh?
Hey everyone! My names Jenna and I'm a senior writing major at Kutztown. I live in NJ w/ my family and a bunch of birds [totally not joking, my Mom is an obsessive animal lover haha]Anyway I started reading about rhetoric, but immediately found myself caught up in the fact that to me, rhetoric is a philosophy. Its a little hard to place an answer to a subject that has the depth of a million questions, so I am a little caught on how exactly I want to take rhetoric as.
Ramage uses "Serious People" and "Rhetorical People" within his text, and is able to draw a distinctive line. While the Serious People tend to search for the difinitive and certain answers to questions, Rhetorical People are less for characterizing a situation or thing, and more opt to find their own way and make their own answers; whether they make sense or not. Rhetoric therefore focuses less on the end, but more on the journey to wherever it may be.
I am going to start reading the article now, but I hope I didn't sound too much like I am pulling stuff outta you know where, and I really do have the right concept to what rhetoric may mean. Uh... yeah.
Ramage uses "Serious People" and "Rhetorical People" within his text, and is able to draw a distinctive line. While the Serious People tend to search for the difinitive and certain answers to questions, Rhetorical People are less for characterizing a situation or thing, and more opt to find their own way and make their own answers; whether they make sense or not. Rhetoric therefore focuses less on the end, but more on the journey to wherever it may be.
I am going to start reading the article now, but I hope I didn't sound too much like I am pulling stuff outta you know where, and I really do have the right concept to what rhetoric may mean. Uh... yeah.
Ramage warped my mind...
Hey everyone. My name is Kim McPherson and I'm a junior Prof. Writing writing with a minor in literature and possibly women's studies.
I guess I'll just jump right in and start with Ramage. I started reading like I usually do with any textbook--with a highlighter. Unfortunately, that doesn't help because the book jumps from topic to topic and makes reference to one thing immediately after another. I was very confused to say the least. The thing that did me in right from the beginning was when he says, "What we won't be doing in this chapter is telling you what rhetoric is in fifty words or less--other than to say it always has to do with the production/interpretation of symbolic acts and usually has to do with persuasion." I highlighted and stuck with this definition, because by the end, I kind of threw up my hands, shrugged, and felt like I'd been made dumber.
I did enjoy the Crowley and Hawhee reading on Ereserves much better. It was much more direct, which made it more engaging. The examples were well thought-out, well-placed, and easy to relate to, as compared to the references in Ramage that seemed random and haphazardly thrown in without a cohesive feel in between.
See you guys later today!
I guess I'll just jump right in and start with Ramage. I started reading like I usually do with any textbook--with a highlighter. Unfortunately, that doesn't help because the book jumps from topic to topic and makes reference to one thing immediately after another. I was very confused to say the least. The thing that did me in right from the beginning was when he says, "What we won't be doing in this chapter is telling you what rhetoric is in fifty words or less--other than to say it always has to do with the production/interpretation of symbolic acts and usually has to do with persuasion." I highlighted and stuck with this definition, because by the end, I kind of threw up my hands, shrugged, and felt like I'd been made dumber.
I did enjoy the Crowley and Hawhee reading on Ereserves much better. It was much more direct, which made it more engaging. The examples were well thought-out, well-placed, and easy to relate to, as compared to the references in Ramage that seemed random and haphazardly thrown in without a cohesive feel in between.
See you guys later today!
Monday, September 11, 2006
Nonsensical Hubbery
Hey all, this is Cory (Cory M Mull as most know me -- literary greats among the likes of Bill Gates, Donald Rumsfeld, Oprah, Jebus, Toukan Sam and Colin Blair all know me by that name). My hobbies include reading the day before an assignment is due (although, this was not the case here--I only had to read about 15 pages today), skipping along sidewalks in mid-afternoon and recalling drunken nights of text-messages.
So now that you have the basic summary of my life, I might as well delve into the nonsense that is "rhetoric." What a bunch of hoo-ha this is. Not only is it nearly impossible to decipher, it's wildly over written, provides too many accounts of pointless metaphors and doesn't connect with my meager little mindset. When a book tells you, "what we won't do in this chapter is tell you flat out what rhetoric is..." then by all accounts in my mind, there will be a problem. Um, if you're not going to tell me literally, what's the point? Can't definitions be told in less than,I don't know....a book? Yes, I understand the complexities of this word "rhetoric" and the many fascinating areas of study here, but to sit and read page after page of endless material, it just doesn't connect. There are moments, few moments, when this book details the simple nature of rhetoric, but then that simple context is masked by 2,000 words of random anecdotes about how the author wants to become an NBA center, but didn't inherent the characteristics of such genes. Wait, what? When does the NBA come into play here? I'm confused.
Fitting, after 60 pages of utter beffudlement.
But I must say: that's why we have you, TEACH!
So now that you have the basic summary of my life, I might as well delve into the nonsense that is "rhetoric." What a bunch of hoo-ha this is. Not only is it nearly impossible to decipher, it's wildly over written, provides too many accounts of pointless metaphors and doesn't connect with my meager little mindset. When a book tells you, "what we won't do in this chapter is tell you flat out what rhetoric is..." then by all accounts in my mind, there will be a problem. Um, if you're not going to tell me literally, what's the point? Can't definitions be told in less than,I don't know....a book? Yes, I understand the complexities of this word "rhetoric" and the many fascinating areas of study here, but to sit and read page after page of endless material, it just doesn't connect. There are moments, few moments, when this book details the simple nature of rhetoric, but then that simple context is masked by 2,000 words of random anecdotes about how the author wants to become an NBA center, but didn't inherent the characteristics of such genes. Wait, what? When does the NBA come into play here? I'm confused.
Fitting, after 60 pages of utter beffudlement.
But I must say: that's why we have you, TEACH!
So glad I'm not the only one
Hello all!!!!!! My name is Dawn. I am an English Sec.ed major and sooooo happy I'm not the only one who couldn't quite grasp was Ramage was saying as a whole. As I read, I understood what Ramage was saying in bits and pieces, especially with the help of his examples (maybe a few too many). BUT I found myself rereading at least two times to get it a little bit. The first thirteen or so pages I had to read FOUR times just to get used to his language. I THINK I got through it O.K. in the end. At least I'm still living. I certainly have plenty of looming questions I hope will be answered in class.
Hi Ho Hi Ho it's off to blog I go....
Hey all, I'm Lindsay...a Secondary Ed English major. I find it interesting and rather amusing that we have to post on a blog for class since I'm already an avid blogger on another site.
After reading the chapter a few times there was one sentence in the beginning that has stuck in my head to help clear the cobwebs of what rhetoric really is. "What matters is not the truth of a statement but the effect on an audience." (*page 5 in the first paragraph*) Maybe that has nothing to do with it buuuuut it clicked some type of light on in my head.
I'm looking foward to class tomorrow to see what we all have to say. =D
After reading the chapter a few times there was one sentence in the beginning that has stuck in my head to help clear the cobwebs of what rhetoric really is. "What matters is not the truth of a statement but the effect on an audience." (*page 5 in the first paragraph*) Maybe that has nothing to do with it buuuuut it clicked some type of light on in my head.
I'm looking foward to class tomorrow to see what we all have to say. =D
The Rhetorical Question?
Whats up everyone! My name is Chris Costello and I'm an electronic media major in my junior year at KU. I can proudly say that this is my first official blog post. Anyway, this Ramage guy is very unique to say the least. Although he refuses to offer a straightforward definition of rhetoric, he certainly gives the reader a confusing crash course on the subject. Like him or not, he does have some valid points about the morality of rhetoric. He says there are no gatekeepers or codes of conduct in this discipline. For this reason, I feel that rhetoric is too often used for immoral purposes and selfish propaganda. Audiences may not have the knowledge and awareness to read between the lines. Politicians usaully come to mind when discussing this topic. I'm not saying rhetoric is always immoral or misleading, but it does lack ethical boundaries. Ramage even says that "rhetoric encourages agonistic behavior." Is rhetoric bad or good? I'm not sure if I know the answer to the rhetorical question yet.
Ramage on a rhetorical rampage
Yo, Dudes and Dudettes. It would have been really cool to post earlier than the day before class but I couldn't quite recall my username--too much technology in my life. I'm a junior pro writing major. I am trying very diligently to break any procrastination habits. Not such a good start.
And, my title has nothing to do with the subject of my post. Just a heads up.
So, I read Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation first and I'll tell you what, I really thought it was going to be some ridiculously dense recall of the numerous rhetorical philosophers and, on top of that, a vocabulary nightmare. I was rather wrong. It was straight forward and very much a that's-kinda-common-sense reading. It's always nice to make concrete the things we take for granted.
The reading is similar to the PR class I have this semester; it was all that stuff we already know, but the author writes a book and labels everything. Hopefully I can make some money doing that sometime soon (I'm really broke). It was a good basis for exploring rhetoric and audience.
Ramage ... Honestly, I'm pretty sure he made some good points, but I think I need to reread that whole first section before I understand if there was any structure to what he said. I think there was. It was a bit heavier than I expected.
And, my title has nothing to do with the subject of my post. Just a heads up.
So, I read Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation first and I'll tell you what, I really thought it was going to be some ridiculously dense recall of the numerous rhetorical philosophers and, on top of that, a vocabulary nightmare. I was rather wrong. It was straight forward and very much a that's-kinda-common-sense reading. It's always nice to make concrete the things we take for granted.
The reading is similar to the PR class I have this semester; it was all that stuff we already know, but the author writes a book and labels everything. Hopefully I can make some money doing that sometime soon (I'm really broke). It was a good basis for exploring rhetoric and audience.
Ramage ... Honestly, I'm pretty sure he made some good points, but I think I need to reread that whole first section before I understand if there was any structure to what he said. I think there was. It was a bit heavier than I expected.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
If you give a writer a blog...
He'll want a cookie to go with it. Hi! My name is Heather and I am a procrastinator. I like to cut things close and live for the now. And I definately like clear defintions. I was glad Ramage started out with arguments against rhetoric, becuase I was feeling resentful toward rhetoric at the moment. It was interesting how Ramage twisted the arguments toward supporting rhetoric just by showing how the arguer was not real, and just a way to prove the positive points of rhetoric. It bothered me how in the first half of the introduction the arguments were numbered points, and the second half was not--not a very clear way to compare the pros and cons, but then, since when is rhetoric clear? Shoulda seen that one coming. Now where is my cookie?...
My first thoughtful blog
My name is Justine and I am a professional writing major/women's studies minor. I live in Kutztown (thankfully not in town) with my bestfriend, my boyfriend, our dog (Rupert) and our cat (Banjo). I completly forgot that we even had to blog because we haven't had class in a while.
In terms of the text, I can say that so far I'm not a huge fan. Sorry. It shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, however, because I don't like many of the texts I have to read, mainly because I HAVE to read them. I did like how the book said "There is no Golden Rule of rhetoric, no "DO unto Others." I took this as basically saying that rhetoric is never (or hardly ever) wrong. It is what you make it out to be. There are no right or wrong answers. Also the book uses an example from the comedian Groucho Marx who said, "Those are just my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
As I read the first chapter I came across P-Dog. This exerp made me laugh because my dog is the same way. He seems to respond to questions but he doesn't. He has no idea what I am saying to him when I ask him why he crapped on the dining room floor, but he can tell from the tone in my voice that I am not happy and therefore he knows not to come near me. This isn't because he is being bad; he doesn't know what bad is. Rupert is just behaving the only way he knows how. It was an interesting part in the book, for sure. Although, it did make me feel bad for getting soooo mad at him. Chances are i'm going to keep getting mad though.
That's all for now until I read the Crowley and Hawhee handout on ereserves.
In terms of the text, I can say that so far I'm not a huge fan. Sorry. It shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, however, because I don't like many of the texts I have to read, mainly because I HAVE to read them. I did like how the book said "There is no Golden Rule of rhetoric, no "DO unto Others." I took this as basically saying that rhetoric is never (or hardly ever) wrong. It is what you make it out to be. There are no right or wrong answers. Also the book uses an example from the comedian Groucho Marx who said, "Those are just my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
As I read the first chapter I came across P-Dog. This exerp made me laugh because my dog is the same way. He seems to respond to questions but he doesn't. He has no idea what I am saying to him when I ask him why he crapped on the dining room floor, but he can tell from the tone in my voice that I am not happy and therefore he knows not to come near me. This isn't because he is being bad; he doesn't know what bad is. Rupert is just behaving the only way he knows how. It was an interesting part in the book, for sure. Although, it did make me feel bad for getting soooo mad at him. Chances are i'm going to keep getting mad though.
That's all for now until I read the Crowley and Hawhee handout on ereserves.
rhetor ahhhhh
When I began to read this book I knew that I was doomed from the start. I not only have the attention span of a 9 year old but when I start reading something that bores me or just drags on and on I get even worse. I struggled getting through the 68 pages that were assigned. Though Ramage does an excellent job with his explinations he lacks with what he is trying to actually say. It seems to babble on about how people who use rhetoric are bad evil whatnot. He also is babbleing on about serious people and why they're in turn better. I feel as though everyone uses rhetoric and you cannot go without the use of it and hat those so called "serious" people are just trying way to hard. I mean just reading this it seems like soemoen who uses rhetoric is the bad guy in the situation but I feel as though rhetoric does need to be used. I mean when most people present something they're using rhetoric as a way to help get a point accross and they themselves are also falling into what they are saying not just convinceing the audience. So Although Ramage presents what he feels in a good yet boring way I like rhetoric. So thats about how I feel on that right now.. Oh and I know we have to write a bit about ourselves. My name is Amber my user name is a nickname I have had for a long time and well my name. I am Sophmore Speech communications major and I work as a CA in Rothermel hall. I'm 19 and I actually dont have a drivers license. Okay thats a bit about me byes everyone
Serious v. Rhetorical
To be honest, I'm not finished reading the book selection yet. I got about halfway through when I had to put it down for the great headache I received when considering the difference between Serious People and Rhetorical People and definition of Rhetoric in general. Although others here have said Ramage is writing an arguement against Rhetorical People, I got the impression that he must prefer their abstract ways of thinking rather than to belong to the Serious People group, who seem to need an answer for everything.
I have to disagree. Serious People do need answers, as do I, yet I also consider the range of answers that could be given in a given situation, as a Rhetorical Person. Almost like politics (which is funny, considering the average politician's attachment to rhetoric), it seems rare for a person to be set into one particular ideology. Of course it could be done, but for those with both characteristics, the practice is an unfair judgement.
Reading the eReserves packet, I was interested in reading about the attempts of persuasive arguements in popular debates, such as capital punishment, even though topics like the death penalty and abortion and whatnot have been done to death (oh the horrible puns!), I like the idea of rhetoric thinking of a new way to present an old problem. Guess who has a new problem? George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois mentioned in the article. If you're a member of New York Times online, which is free, you could click on his name to read about how he was just sentenced to 6 and 1/2 years in prison for corruption and fraud. Although some anti-capital punishment activists might have cheered Ryan when he gave clemency to death row inmates the second before he left office, perhaps they might be singing a different tune now that he did something illegal. Then again, people make mistakes, and sometimes, people pay for it. Or the taxpayers, but I would argue this with Ryan himself or another corrupt politician. I'm sure you'd have your pick.
I seriously believe all situations need to be judged based on their individual attributes. Just because George Ryan made a mistake doesn't mean all politicans make mistakes, based on a rhetorical view. However, the popularity of rich white men publicly bashing either other in campaign ads, committing fraud and money laundering, and basically fighting to get into office so they could either vote for their own pay raise or vote against raising minimum wage is just the way society sees their government leaders. Is this the way things really are or the way they are perceived? Ramage's Serious People might give a straight yes/no answer, Rhetorical People might be a little more socially sensitive, saying it could be either depending on an individual's personal beliefs.
And now I'm done thinking about rhetoric for the night...
I have to disagree. Serious People do need answers, as do I, yet I also consider the range of answers that could be given in a given situation, as a Rhetorical Person. Almost like politics (which is funny, considering the average politician's attachment to rhetoric), it seems rare for a person to be set into one particular ideology. Of course it could be done, but for those with both characteristics, the practice is an unfair judgement.
Reading the eReserves packet, I was interested in reading about the attempts of persuasive arguements in popular debates, such as capital punishment, even though topics like the death penalty and abortion and whatnot have been done to death (oh the horrible puns!), I like the idea of rhetoric thinking of a new way to present an old problem. Guess who has a new problem? George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois mentioned in the article. If you're a member of New York Times online, which is free, you could click on his name to read about how he was just sentenced to 6 and 1/2 years in prison for corruption and fraud. Although some anti-capital punishment activists might have cheered Ryan when he gave clemency to death row inmates the second before he left office, perhaps they might be singing a different tune now that he did something illegal. Then again, people make mistakes, and sometimes, people pay for it. Or the taxpayers, but I would argue this with Ryan himself or another corrupt politician. I'm sure you'd have your pick.
I seriously believe all situations need to be judged based on their individual attributes. Just because George Ryan made a mistake doesn't mean all politicans make mistakes, based on a rhetorical view. However, the popularity of rich white men publicly bashing either other in campaign ads, committing fraud and money laundering, and basically fighting to get into office so they could either vote for their own pay raise or vote against raising minimum wage is just the way society sees their government leaders. Is this the way things really are or the way they are perceived? Ramage's Serious People might give a straight yes/no answer, Rhetorical People might be a little more socially sensitive, saying it could be either depending on an individual's personal beliefs.
And now I'm done thinking about rhetoric for the night...
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Ramage.......and my headache
Hi this is Chris Hardin and as I mentioned during our first class(It seems like a quite a long time ago) I'm a Kutztown graduate going back for my teaching certification(English & Communications) and M.Ed and currently work full-time as a case manager/counselor in the Allentown School District.....As I delved into Ramage's book I'm uncertain as if the abstract nature of this reading, the start of the school year or my allergies/sinuses has given me a pounding headache for the last week or so. Hopefully this posting will be somewhat coherent in my curtain condition. Ramage presents a number of examples of with his "performance" of Rhetoric and it's certainly an unusual start to a textbook. He contrasts the "rhetorician" and Socrates and how Socrates stands for "The Truth" while a rhetorician is only interested in his or her gain. Within the first segment, Ramage slams rhetoric as a deceptive driven practice without discernible boundaries. His comparison of rhetoric to professional wrestling is quite amusing as he uses his own rhetoric to devalue the topic. Ramage is looking for the reader to examine the complexities of rhetoric and acknowledge the deeper meanings that rhetoric contains.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Go Go Gadget Blog Post!
Well this is certainly exciting, I can't say I ever expected to be using a blog for a college course. It's nice to see technology being used to its extent, exploring possibilities that it wasn't originally intended for. The Internet after all was conceived as a tool for research and communication so it's only fair to use it as an open forum for educational purposes.
On the other hand I could be talking out of the side of my mouth, maybe even using rhetoric to convince not only you, my composition classmates, but also myself that this will be a fun and exciting method of learning how to become a better writer which is obviously what we're all here to do.
I can't say I've ever been too fond of blogs and I'm not very up to date on the blogosphere, and the blogonomics and blogonomitry of blogging and so on and so forth but I am a hardened Internet warrior with some experience and I can recognize how it's changing the way we communicate especially in the sense of instant communication without gatekeepers to hold us back (for better or worse) and instant feedback from sources that are literally global in scale. Of course if you want to look at it from the perspective of Ramage's "Serious People" then it's not changing anything because you can't change anything since nothing that didn't exist before can possibly exist now or should exist now because if it didn't exist before then we obviously didn't need it and why should it exist now?
Anyway, that last sentence gave me a headache. I'm sure the philosophy brought up in the introduction chapter will make for an interesting class on Tuesday. I hope I'm not the only one that's just still just a wee bit confused on the topic of rhetoric.
On the other hand I could be talking out of the side of my mouth, maybe even using rhetoric to convince not only you, my composition classmates, but also myself that this will be a fun and exciting method of learning how to become a better writer which is obviously what we're all here to do.
I can't say I've ever been too fond of blogs and I'm not very up to date on the blogosphere, and the blogonomics and blogonomitry of blogging and so on and so forth but I am a hardened Internet warrior with some experience and I can recognize how it's changing the way we communicate especially in the sense of instant communication without gatekeepers to hold us back (for better or worse) and instant feedback from sources that are literally global in scale. Of course if you want to look at it from the perspective of Ramage's "Serious People" then it's not changing anything because you can't change anything since nothing that didn't exist before can possibly exist now or should exist now because if it didn't exist before then we obviously didn't need it and why should it exist now?
Anyway, that last sentence gave me a headache. I'm sure the philosophy brought up in the introduction chapter will make for an interesting class on Tuesday. I hope I'm not the only one that's just still just a wee bit confused on the topic of rhetoric.
My thoughts on "Rhetoric"
Hello everyone! My name is Devon Kramer, and this is my first official Blog post ever! (I hope I do it right!) I just completed the Introduction in Ramage's book. I must say that the book was hard to get into. (Sorry, Professor Mahoney!) I am the kind of person who likes a straight-forward definition for everything, maybe like those "Serious People" that Ramage seems to dislike. So when I read the Introduction and did not find a clear definition of rhetoric, I was...kinda lost. But once I read through the whole chapter I began to form an idea in my head of this mysterious concept. The examples where Ramage compares rhetoric with law and cooking help illustrate his points.
Hopefully reading on will help me to shake off the last of my confusion! See everyone on Tuesday.
Hopefully reading on will help me to shake off the last of my confusion! See everyone on Tuesday.
Rhetoriphobia
Does the intense study of communication turn any attempt at communication into somethin akin to a game, or perhaps a running of a computer program? It is a fear of mine, but I'm absolutely uncertain as to its base in reality. Ramage acknowledges the rather obvious in his book when he writes that conversation is "central to our existence," and that it is "how friends and lovers establish intimacy." The fact that this point is made right in the midst of a study of rhetoric strikes me as alarming. If ones ability to communicate begins to draw heavily on their knowledge of what linguistic techniques are most effective, and how to be most persuasive, then what is done to the possibility of having an authentic conversation? And by authentic I suppose I mean one which is not manipulative. Granted, people use manipulative language and deceit all the time, even without any background in the study of language. I suppose I'm just wondering if such studies make it easier to maniuplate, and in the process, make it more difficult to honestly interact with others. Thoughts?
Also, I'm Aaron. I'm interested in literature, film, music, spending too much time contemplating the most worthwhile ways to spend my time, and "the issues" such as politics, education, culture, and globalization, all of which I know relatively little about, so I'm probably part of the problem.
Also, I'm Aaron. I'm interested in literature, film, music, spending too much time contemplating the most worthwhile ways to spend my time, and "the issues" such as politics, education, culture, and globalization, all of which I know relatively little about, so I'm probably part of the problem.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
My first blog entry (thoughts on "Rhetoric")
Hello, my name is Jon. As you can tell from the title, this is the first time I am writing in a blog. I am from Allentown and am currently a senior professional writing major. For this reason, I am trying to write well in order to prove to myself that I did not choose the wrong major. From what I have read thus far in "Rhetoric: A User's Guide" this course seems like it will be very interesting. I like the philosophical view Ramage takes on the subject of rhetoric. His examples help give a clearer understanding on this complex subject. I find myself relating to the "Rhetorical People" better since we both 'never step in the same river twice' and 'rely on experience' (17). As I read, trying to relate to the author, images of a secluded conspiracy theorist can not be pushed out of my mind. Though I agree with everything he says, it seems as if Ramage is dividing everyone into "Rhetorical People" and "Serious People" and is set on blaming one of the two opposing groups for all the wrongs of the world. This could be because it is only the introduction and he is trying to get across how far reaching the influences of rhetoric truly are. Whatever the case, I look forward to learning more on the subject.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
YIPPEEEE! My very first blog!
Hello fellow classmates! I also have heard students and other profs speak about Mahony and his class VERY positively! Definitely a good thing! Especially after being asked during our first class to answer, "What is rhetoric?" It's one of those words that most people know what it is in context, but to single it out and describe it specifically is a whole other ball game. At least for me it was.
That's about it for my first attempt at a blog ...
Dawn
That's about it for my first attempt at a blog ...
Dawn
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Making this work
I'm mAking a blog right now right here on my friends comp because well mine went all dead.. This is Amber from Class I am currently on duty in rothermel and my two friends are canoodling in the background Yes I understand that canoodling isnt a real word and My friends are making werid nosies oh no I'm afariad to look back... okay I was just checking to see if this worked.. P.S. Bobby come here I'm scared
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)