After reading Mikhail Bakhtin's Marxism and the Philosophy of Rhetoric, we decided to engage in an interactive conversation to discuss the problems of defining rhetoric through the use of language. The foundation of our conversation is based on the following question:
"Does the philosophy of human language complicate how we define and understand rhetoric?"
Yazmin:
The moment in the reading where I sensed a strong connection between the ideas being presented and my working understanding of rhetoric was in Bakhtin’s discussion of words. The connection between the word, according to Bakhtin, and my sense of the nature of rhetoric thus far, came about specifically in his discussion of the word as a neutral sign: “Every other kind of semiotic material is specialized for some particular field of ideological creativity. Each field possesses its own ideological material and formulates signs and symbols specific to itself and not applicable in other fields….A word, in contrast, is neutral with respect to any specific ideological function. It can carry out ideological functions of any kind—scientific, aesthetic, ethical, religious” (Bizzell and Herzberg 1213). As our encyclopedic text this semester, The Rhetorical Tradition attests, we may find sections linking rhetoric to the fields of science, literature, ethics, and religion—in this sense, rhetoric may be said to be neutral in the way that Bakhtin describes the word being neutral.
From this position of neutrality however, enters the role of audience and historical situation. Bakhtin states, “Orientation of the word toward the addressee has an extremely high significance. In point of fact, word is a two-sided act. It is determined equally by whose word it is and for whom it is meant. As word, it is precisely the product of the reciprocal relationship between speaker and listener, addresser and addressee. Each and every word expresses the ‘one’ in relation to the ‘other.’ I give myself verbal shape from another’s point of view, ultimately, from the point of view of the community from which I belong” (1215). Bakhtin then goes on to state that “A word is a bridge thrown between myself and another. If one end of the bridge depends on me, then the other depends on my addressee” (1215).
So this is my attempt to build a bridge with Sean and Falana on one level, with Dr. Morton and the rest of the students in our rhetorical theory course on another, and with the entire web universe on yet another. From my understanding, Bakhtin’s ideas as contained in his essay encourage a combination meta-response and sociological point of view as the approach to take in order to take verbal shape here. This is quite an exercise because it requires that I be very aware of how I am situated in relation to Sean, Falana, the course, the requirements of the assignment, to name only a few considerations of this particular social context. So, in effect, my attempt was to demonstrate my understanding of the role of rhetoric within the cluster of ideas in Bakhtin’s essay in a way that both Sean and Falana could question, respond, and /or critique. My understanding of how we decided to frame our reading response dictated the verbal shape of my utterance.
Sean:
Yazmin, I truly appreciate the fact that you have addressed your response in a fashion that takes into consideration not only myself, but my fellow peers as well. I often use the expression, "Put yourself in my shoes," and from a rhetorical perspective, you seem to do exactly that. You are building a rhetorical bridge that is attempting to create both self-understanding and universal communication. Your approach is effective and enlightening.
Falana:
Without any type of specialized background, we know that language, especially English, is complicated. It's one of the most difficult languages to learn, there are several spellings of one word, and that one word could have numerous meanings. Add in the elements of philosophy and rhetoric and you have an entire college course on your hands…but I digress.
Mikail Bakhtin, author of "Marxism and the Philosophy of Language", believed "that the true basis of linguistics is the study of utterances, of speech acts ….but the structural descriptions (of linguistics) do not explain the way language is actually used (1208). In short, the technical analysis of the language would not explain why specific words were used to communicate a thought.
At first Bakhtin explains the ideology of signs, which we also learned about with John Locke, and how signs "reflect or refract another reality" (1211). He also focuses on how context plays an important role in language. Even without Bakhtin's thoughts on context, classical rhetoricians indirectly refer to context and its importance by addressing things such as style and delivery and when and how to address people. If context wasn't important, I believe rhetoric would not be as complex as it is.
Understanding semiotics complicates understanding because a sign or symbol that represents something must first be understood by another in order for "understanding" to begin. Humans must be "organized socially" in order for any of this to begin. If semiotics falls under the umbrella of "human language" then that automatically adds in another level to rhetoric.
"Any utterance, no matter how weighty and complete….is only a moment in the continuous process of verbal communication" (1221).
With language, regardless of "what" was said and "how" it was said, it is only relevant within the context and time at which the utterance was used. In regards to rhetoric, it explains how different oratorical techniques are used when speaking to an audience of a political campaign, or to an audience in a legal setting.
Sean:
Falana, your analysis of context is quite interesting. In my opinion, so many oratorical practices are taken out of context this day and age, so a deep analysis and understanding of context is key in developing one's comprehension of rheoric. Societal and cultural traits also complicate the ever-evolving world of rhetorical theory. Semiotics, as described by you, also must be considered from the standpoint of speaker and listerner. Bakhtin's descriptions of the use of words may explain why people who are attempting to learn and immerse themselves in a foreign language have trouble learning how to speak contextually and effectively in a rhetorical setting.
Yazmin:
Falana, your response made me think about context and the classical figures in rhetoric you mentioned. From Bakhtin’s essay, “Each situation, fixed and sustained by social custom, commands a particular kind of organization of audience and, hence, a particular repertoire of little behavior genres. The behavioral genre fits everywhere into the channel of social intercourse assigned to it and functions as an ideological reflection of its type, structure, goal, and social composition” (1223). This quote and the readings we had from the classical period make me wonder what Bakhtin would say about our reading of their context-specific work from our context-specific time. It makes me think about reading-response theory and what it says about the role of readers in infusing meaning to a text written in a different time. Maybe the methodology he suggests works to describe how to approach both a synchronous and asynchronous speaker, listener, addresser and addressee relationship.
Sean:
When I look back at the studies of our rhetorical theory class, I am constantly reminded of the various discussions that have taken place in an attempt to define rhetoric. In Part I of Bakhtin’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, he writes, “Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs, there is no ideology.” (1210) These writings are eerily reminiscent of the theories and writings of John Locke. Locke’s emphasis upon language reflects how words serve as the signs of human ideas. Bakhtin also places an importance on the word and how it “is wholly absorbed in its function of being a sign.” (1213) The distinct variations of the world of signs, through the use of language, have helped to shape the ambiguous and ever-frustrating “definition” of rhetoric. There is definitely an important need to interpret and understand the source and context of language when trying to interpret meaning.
In Part II of Bakhtin’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, the attention shifts toward a focus on verbal interaction. The interesting descriptions of verbal interaction make me think of the importance of analyzing the speaker and listener in a conversation. The bulk of the rhetorical theory readings, along with the associated class discussions, have shed some light on the nature of language and verbal interaction. I will be the first to admit that I have, at times, become lost in the robust readings and vastly intellectual discussions that have taken place in our virtual classroom. Perhaps, as Bakhtin points out, I should seek to gain a better understanding and increase my knowledge of “each person’s inner world” and “social audience that comprises the environment in which reasons, motives, values, and so on are fashioned.” (1215) I found this quote to be so poignant because it takes into consideration social individuality and context.
As students, we all have the luxury of being imbedded in the realm of higher learning, and we are all sharing the same rhetorical theory texts. Also, we all get to pick the brain of our professor to gain better insight into the world of rhetoric. Yet, we all seem to have our own interpretations/definitions of rhetoric itself. The unique language we use, combined with our unique social and cultural backgrounds, fuels the ambiguity that surrounds our current study of rhetoric. Bakhtin’s writings help to explain why the use of language has enshrouded rhetorical theory and subsequently created a mysterious definition that seems to be at our fingertips, but not quite in our complete grasp. In my opinion, the Digital Age and the expansion of mass communication practices will only create more problems in gaining such a set-in-stone definition of rhetoric. However, in the end, maybe this is a good thing. The versatility of rhetoric, and its ability to spill over into an array of fields, has further solidified its importance.
Yazmin:
Sean, I would like to respond to your observations about the fact that while we all use the same text and are in the same class led by the same professor, we all have a unique understanding of the ideas in the course because of, as you point out, our “unique social and cultural backgrounds.” I found your admission about sometimes becoming lost in the reading and the online class discussions authentic and powerful—especially as it relates to our topic in this conversation: making meaning from verbal interaction. I have been lost both in the texts and in the discussions this semester, too. After reading Bakhtin, I wonder how I fit in with the notion of “addressee” at various levels, but including the standpoint of the texts and of our class context. Bakhtin does state, (and I now see how this relates to my questions to Falana): “specific class and specific era are limits that the ideal of addressee cannot go beyond” (1215). Framing your response with Bakhtin’s claims, namely, “that situation shapes the utterance, dictating that it sound one way and not another—like a demand or request, insistence on one’s rights or a plea for mercy, in a style flowery or plain, in a confident or hesitant manner, and so on” (1215), is so interesting because of the bridge that you are building with Falana, myself, and the potentially the rest of the class. I certainly have been illuminated by thinking about our responses, and this specific conversation on rhetoric and Bakhtin, in these terms.
