Read Online A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric by Richard Andrews - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Richard Andrews
Ads: Link
individual, is that both are informed by the socio-psychological framings, modal variations, and power relations of rhetoric.
Finally, in this chapter on the limitations of classical rhetoric and the parameters of contemporary rhetoric—its antecedents and its distinctive nature now—we address the question of whether we should be using the pluralistic term
rhetorics
or stick with the singular and overarching term
rhetoric
. Earlier in this chapter, we dealt with the pejorative associations of the term
rhetoric
that occur frequently in everyday discourse and in newspaper, radio, and television media (driven by a journalistic mission to separate the “truth” from “mere rhetoric”). We can learn much from the creation and use—and ultimate demise—of the pluralistic term
literacies
. Coined in the 1990s to reflect the social, anthropological, and political variations in kinds of literacy, and also to refer to different domains of literacy and competence (like computer literacy, emotional literacy, financial literacy), the term
literacies
has been over-used and attentuated to such a degree that it is in danger of losing meaning—and coming to mean mere competence. The balance between unifying and diversifying tendencies in the use of such terms—always remembering that
literacy
implies
literacies
and vice-versa—has been lost as the devaluing of the term
literacies
has washed back to dilute the original singular term,
literacy
. So, too, in the present book we have retained the singular term
rhetoric
, eschewing the opportunity to distinguish between Rhetoric (high, approbational) and rhetoric (low, pejorative) or to pluralize into
rhetorics
(reflecting the diversity of ideology, situation, or application). When “rhetoric” is used in the present book, albeit with its tarnished and battered associations, it is used to imply both high and low associations and to embrace pluralistic versions. Like the field itself, and its principal term, it has limitations.
3
Rhetoric and English Studies
As has been suggested so far, rhetoric is the discipline that has been the basis for theorizing about communication in public since pre-Athenian days—not the pejorative use of the term in phrases such as “mere rhetoric” or “cant, sophistication, and rhetoric.” The knife-edge nature of the term makes use of it risky. Nevertheless, the risk is worth taking in relation to the future of English as a school and university subject.
Rhetoric is about who communicates what to whom about what, in which modes and media, how and (sometimes) why—though the latter function encroaches into the territory of philosophy. It can variously be described as “the arts of discourse” or “the science of communication.” One of its great advantages is that it does not limit itself to any particular language—English, Mandarin, Spanish—nor to any particular mode— writing, for example—or medium (e.g., on screen, on paper). It includes other modes, such as the still image, moving image, gesture, and sound, as well as the verbal mode, which covers speech and writing. It is not only socially situated but politically situated, too, sensitive to the power relations that inform communication between individuals and between groups, on domestic, local, regional, national, and international levels. (The rhetoric of communication beyond the planet has been wittily dealt with in Edwin Morgan's poetry collection,
From Glasgow to Saturn
, 1973.) It is pan- or multi-linguistic, multimodal, and socio/political and thus—potentially—provides a unifying theory for “English” and other subjects concerned with communication.
“English” seems to be a misnomer. We might be engaged with writing in English from across the world, but we should also acknowledge that such writing may have been cast originally in another language and/or culture—and so issues of translation are at play. We are interested in the evolving history
Finally, in this chapter on the limitations of classical rhetoric and the parameters of contemporary rhetoric—its antecedents and its distinctive nature now—we address the question of whether we should be using the pluralistic term
rhetorics
or stick with the singular and overarching term
rhetoric
. Earlier in this chapter, we dealt with the pejorative associations of the term
rhetoric
that occur frequently in everyday discourse and in newspaper, radio, and television media (driven by a journalistic mission to separate the “truth” from “mere rhetoric”). We can learn much from the creation and use—and ultimate demise—of the pluralistic term
literacies
. Coined in the 1990s to reflect the social, anthropological, and political variations in kinds of literacy, and also to refer to different domains of literacy and competence (like computer literacy, emotional literacy, financial literacy), the term
literacies
has been over-used and attentuated to such a degree that it is in danger of losing meaning—and coming to mean mere competence. The balance between unifying and diversifying tendencies in the use of such terms—always remembering that
literacy
implies
literacies
and vice-versa—has been lost as the devaluing of the term
literacies
has washed back to dilute the original singular term,
literacy
. So, too, in the present book we have retained the singular term
rhetoric
, eschewing the opportunity to distinguish between Rhetoric (high, approbational) and rhetoric (low, pejorative) or to pluralize into
rhetorics
(reflecting the diversity of ideology, situation, or application). When “rhetoric” is used in the present book, albeit with its tarnished and battered associations, it is used to imply both high and low associations and to embrace pluralistic versions. Like the field itself, and its principal term, it has limitations.
3
Rhetoric and English Studies
As has been suggested so far, rhetoric is the discipline that has been the basis for theorizing about communication in public since pre-Athenian days—not the pejorative use of the term in phrases such as “mere rhetoric” or “cant, sophistication, and rhetoric.” The knife-edge nature of the term makes use of it risky. Nevertheless, the risk is worth taking in relation to the future of English as a school and university subject.
Rhetoric is about who communicates what to whom about what, in which modes and media, how and (sometimes) why—though the latter function encroaches into the territory of philosophy. It can variously be described as “the arts of discourse” or “the science of communication.” One of its great advantages is that it does not limit itself to any particular language—English, Mandarin, Spanish—nor to any particular mode— writing, for example—or medium (e.g., on screen, on paper). It includes other modes, such as the still image, moving image, gesture, and sound, as well as the verbal mode, which covers speech and writing. It is not only socially situated but politically situated, too, sensitive to the power relations that inform communication between individuals and between groups, on domestic, local, regional, national, and international levels. (The rhetoric of communication beyond the planet has been wittily dealt with in Edwin Morgan's poetry collection,
From Glasgow to Saturn
, 1973.) It is pan- or multi-linguistic, multimodal, and socio/political and thus—potentially—provides a unifying theory for “English” and other subjects concerned with communication.
“English” seems to be a misnomer. We might be engaged with writing in English from across the world, but we should also acknowledge that such writing may have been cast originally in another language and/or culture—and so issues of translation are at play. We are interested in the evolving history
Similar Books
