This week, I chose to read Thomas Farrell's "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory" essay. This essay explores the concept of "social knowledge" and how it shapes society and rhetoric as a whole. I also chose to read Michael Calvin McGee's "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology" essay. This essay explores the concept of an "ideograph" and the unique influence that it has on society. Both essays are linked in regard to the societal implications and theories set forth in each. The writings contained in each essay are quite robust, and both essays take strong analytical and philosophical approaches in their broad views. While reading each essay, I pinpointed several passages and quotes that I found to be extremely poignant. The following is a list of passages and quotes taken from each essay. I would like to give some personal perspective and analysis on each of the writings contained on the list. It is worthy to note that these quotes were chosen because of the fact that each one forced to me think more deeply about the arguments and theories presented in each essay.
The following passages and quotes were taken from Thomas Farrell's "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory" essay:
• “Now if all knowledge must rest upon some sort of human consensus and presume some functional connection with human knowers, then it may be logically asked: What functional characterization of knowledge is appropriate to the art of rhetoric? In the argument that follows, I refer to a kind of knowledge which must be assumed if rhetorical discourse is to function effectively. I call this knowledge ‘social knowledge’ and define it as follows:
Social knowledge comprises conceptions of symbolic relationships among problems, persons, interests, and actions, which imply (when accepted) certain notions of preferable public behavior. (142)
Personal Analysis:The notion of "social knowledge", as defined by Farrell, can be applied to almost any societal situation. My interpretation stems from the notion that everything (e.g. people, cultures, customs, etc.), in a given society, is intertwined. The term "common sense" comes to my mind. These inherent, almost unspoken, rules and characteristics of society often seem to be overlooked and inadvertently ignored. I whole-heartedly agree with Farrell in his statement that stresses a need to consider "social knowledge" for the sake of understanding and utilizing rhetorical discourse. With this understanding, one will be able to adapt and function successfully in his or her own societal realm.
• “Not only does social knowledge provide a context of relevance for artistic proof in collective inference making; it also establishes social precedents for future attributions of consensus in situations which have yet to be encountered.” (147)
Personal Analysis:For me, this quote brings to mind the evolution of technological rhetoric. In the mid 90s, when internet technology first came to life, a new way of thinking, living, and learning started to spawn. With this new technology, a communication medium was formed and people had to adjust accordingly. However, the power of social knowledge, and its grip on communication practices, helped people to make the transition to the new medium. This already-established knowledge served as a strong precedent for the powers that regulated such a powerful and viral form of communication.
• “Social knowledge, as a characteristic which is actively attributed to persons, must necessarily partake in the active dimension of the rhetorical process itself.” (150)
Personal Analysis:This statement blatantly states that there needs to be interaction between social knowledge and rhetoric. A successful rhetorician will constantly need to be aware of his or her surroundings, and adapt accordingly. However, the ever-changing world that we live in will often hinder the need to practice and convey effective rhetoric. Thus, with an evolving environment of social knowledge, a true rhetorician will educate oneself to the fullest extent in order to understand society's changes.
The following passages and quotes were taken from Michael Calvin McGee's "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology" essay:
• “The end product of the state’s insistence on some degree of conformity in behavior and belief, I suggest, is a rhetoric of control, a system of persuasion presumed to be effective on the whole community. We make a rhetoric of war to persuade us of war’s necessity , but then forget that it is a rhetoric–and regard negative popular judgments of it as unpatriotic cowardice.” (428)
Personal Analysis:This passage is incredibly poignant when we consider the time we live in. The rhetoric of war seems to be omnipresent this day and age. After September 11th, the ideals of patriotism enveloped the hearts and minds of the American people, as seen in the patriotic rhetoric following that tragic day. Soon thereafter, the power of war rhetoric raged throughout the country and the world. In my opinion this rhetoric was used, by the powers that be, in an attempt to control and persuade the hearts and minds of the American people, and the people of the world, to justify the courses of action that were taken as a result of the attacks on the US. Obviously, the discussion, proposal, and actual act of war are volatile issues that have the potential of tearing a country apart. In this instance, I am of the opinion that the power of rhetoric has failed to control and persuade a great many people. In essence, the political war rhetoric of the last seven years has created a split in the United States. Thus, the rhetoric of war will rage on until a resolution is eventually found. The notion of "unpatriotic cowardice" is not as prominent in the context of modern-day society.
• “An ideograph, however, is always understood in its relation to another; it is defined tautologically by using other terms in its cluster. If we accept that there are three or four or however many possible meanings for ‘equality,’ each with a currency and legitimacy, we distort the nature of the ideological dispute by ignoring the fact that ‘equality’ is made meaningful, not within the clash of multiple usages, but rather in its relationship with ‘freedom.’” (434)
Personal Analysis:This is where much of the confusion comes in when studying rhetorical discourse. There are so many usages and combinations of rhetorical entities, such as McGee's "ideographs", that it makes for a somewhat convoluted perspective. McGee does an excellent job of describing "ideographs" as a community's path to understanding the norms of ideology. People must understand context, and the effect that it has on interpretation and meaning. Also, people must be able to sift through varying ideologies that are influenced by societies of the world. Then, a person will be able to understand the rhetorical relationships that are formed between these so-called "ideographs".
Works Cited:
• Lucaites, John Louis, Celeste Michelle Condit and Sally Caudill, eds. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. New York and London: Guilford Press, 1999. 127-151, 425-440 .
