I, too, teach from Crowley's Ancient Rhetorics. However, I'm surprised by
Mike's recent bashing of Mr. Helms for believing "what he believes because
the Bible tells him so" because Mike seems to have missed the point of
ideology and assumptions in rhetorical contexts. Whether you talk about
the values/assumptions of an ideology with terminology like warrants
(Toulmin), the major premise in an enthymeme, or commonplaces, rhetoric all
comes down to basic assumptions that we can't prove or arrive at by logic.
A liberal (as Crowley discusses liberalism in American politics) assumes
that we as a society should take care of the poor and strive towards
equality among racial/ethnic boundaries, gender, and socio-economic levels.
This is a liberal assumption, a commonplace in liberal ideology about the
way humans should treat other humans in a society. We can't arrive at this
commonplace with "logic" or "reasoning"; it's just there as a basic
assumption in liberal ideology. An argument from liberal ideology will
succeed--will persuade an audience--when that audience shares the
assumption that equality is a good thing.
Back to Helms. An argument from Christian ideology--just like an argument
from Marxism, or conservatism, or humanism, or feminism, or Deconstruction,
or the Islamic faith, or a Jewish faith, or socialism--is always based on
assumptions about the world, about the responsibility of individuals (or
"subject position"), about right and wrong (or relativity and
deconstruction of that dichotomy), about the existence (or nonexistence) of
a Divine.
What we have to teach our students is not to bash other ideologies and call
others "idiots" when we disagree with their assumptions about the world:
> Someone not schooled in rhetoric who disagrees with him thinks Jesse
> Helms is an idiot. A rhetorician knows why he is one and is very able
> to articulate her reasons.
Because the point is, we all base our reasoning on assumptions that can
never be "proved." Whether they come from a "sacred text" or a
purposefully profane text, from our experiences, from what our mother told
us or what a teacher told us or what a leader in the Democratic party told
us, our assumptions about what is important or moral can always be
challenged by another who dismisses our view of the world.
My students learn from Crowley's Ancient Rhetorics, and from me, that they
need to recognize their own ideologies and assumptions as they become
successful rhetors. The next logical step is to teach them to identify the
ideologies and assumptions of the audience they want to persuade.
I'm surprised by Mike's dismissal of all ideologies that base their
assumptions on a sacred text because he has dismissed and alienated--not a
bunch of "idiots" who follow Helms--but every Muslim, every follower of the
Jewish faith, every Christian who find "truth" in "sacred texts". As Mike
said,
> Through the understanding and use of rhetoric one can learn anything
> and apply that knowledge. Without rhetoric it is tough to learn much
> of anything but a bunch of "facts." Maybe this is part of what's
> wrong with education in America?
Teaching rhetoric means teaching students that "facts" are always
interpreted through an ideology. Students need to understand what
assumptions they make and, to be effective rhetors, they need to understand
their audience's assumptions and at least pretend to respect an opposing
point of view.
Sincerely,
Dene' Scoggins
dscoggins@mail.utexas.edu
Assistant Instructor
The University of Texas at Austin
The Division of Rhetoric and Composition
>From 500bce until then all those
> contents were wrapped up into rhetoric of the kind rhetors and
> rhetoricians know well. The rhetoric that deals with all the aspects
> Phyllis points out, context, ideology, assumptions, etc. One cannot
> discuss the power of language and begin to help students understand
> that power and to be facile in its use without dealing with those
> issues. Rhetoric is not simply the use of language to persuade, or a
> balance of ethos, pathos, and logos, or tropes or commonplaces or any
> of the bits and pieces of rhetoric we hear about somewhere. It is all
> those things and so much more.
>
> Could anyone, even the best rhetor, convince Jesse-baby to give up his
> conservative ways? No, I don't believe they could. One of the
> reasons Mr. Helms is not subject to convincing rhetoric is because he
> did not arrive at his views through its use. Jesse believes what he
> believes because he believes it, not because it makes any sense or is
> in the ethical best interest of the society he is elected to serve.
> (But then we get into a discussion of re-presentation the
> Deconstructionist and POMOs like. But rhetoric is an issue there as
> well.) Critical thinking is a central component of rhetoric. Jesse
> believes what he believes because the Bible tells him so.
>
> Someone not schooled in rhetoric who disagrees with him thinks Jesse
> Helms is an idiot. A rhetorician knows why he is one and is very able
> to articulate her reasons.
>
> Through the understanding and use of rhetoric one can learn anything
> and apply that knowledge. Without rhetoric it is tough to learn much
> of anything but a bunch of "facts." Maybe this is part of what's
> wrong with education in America?
>
> For a much better discussion of the application and history of
> rhetoric and its applications in the teaching of composition see:
> "Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students" by Sharon Crowley.
>
> Mike Hamende
> hamendem@cts.db.erau.edu