I’m not exactly sure what constitutes this unit, but my guess is: Kenneth Burke, Wayne C. Booth, Kant and Nietzsche. This week seemed to me to be about learning the basics/logistics/vocabulary of rhetoric and then seeing, to a certain extent, how these skills have been used, and why.
Introductory materials are often thought of as boring and unnecessary. In this case, I was most drawn to the text that was the most rote, Boothe’s The Rhetoric of Rhetoric. This surprised me, but it was endlessly satisfying to see these phenomenon (strategies?) classified, and to see parallels and relationships drawn out between them so incisively.
My interest in this particular author might be be explained by his book The Rhetoric of Fiction which, of all our readings, relates most directly to my area of study. “Unreliable narrator,” for example, a term he coined, is a term I have to use constantly in my discipline, and which I was already curious about.
Largely, what I felt after reading and reflecting on Boothe’s work was not that he had given me brand new information to contend with, but that he outlined a new (to me) and lucrative way of classifying and understanding information that I was already peripherally aware of, but daunted by.
Having types of rhetoric layed out for us and explored elucidates this very crucial idea that: just because something sounds correct/comforting/accurate does not mean it is. So, someone employing Win-Rhetoric may come across as a totally compassionate, thoughtful individual with your best interests at heart. In fact, I came away from these descriptions feeling like: if someone’s perspective sounds really enticing it is particularly worthy of my critical capacities.
This might account for that freaky feeling I sometimes when someone tells me something that doesn’t sound wrong but unsettles me anyways. The body’s way of alerting us to (ethical? moral?) discrepancies.
Obviously, Burke’s article is a canonical example of Bad Intentions masked by Charisma, but looking back on it it can be particularly difficult to see the severity of this discord because, positioned where we are, we already (I hope) know that Nazis are wrong, corrupt, repulsive. However, I think a really important point in this example is the emphasis on what conditions were required for these reprehensible values to not only gain traction, but flourish?
I am prone to seeing synchronicities where they may not be. One example was my two Kant lectures in on day. Another would be the multifarious ways I see these readings connecting with my readings for other classes.
Right now I am reading a lot about the human zoos (absolutely disgusting, I would caution you about how disturbing it is, but encourage you to look into it if you feel able.) Simply put: these were colonial exhibits and performances where real people were taken from their homes (Indigenous people, Indian people, Chinese people, Japanese people, to name only a few.) They were exhibited along with their possessions in the name of education. The purpose of this education was the legitimization and establishment of racial and sexual difference (among many other things.)
These exhibits were not purely entertainment or education they were a national project. The nations in which the zoos occur engineer very clear examples of what they are not (thus, what they are.) The conditions that allowed the zoos to become so terrifically popular were: white supremacy.
(It is worth noting here that I’m using the past tense because I am referring to specific instances, but I think these displays and the things that motivate them are still very much ongoing, in much larger ways than we can perhaps even understand at the moment. Consider how many communities are still in the process of trying to reclaim remains and artifacts, even at UBC. Consider the prison industrial complex.)
Another interesting way I saw rhetoric playing out in these case studies was in the way the zoos and their inhabitants were spoken about by the surrounding communities and their contingent news outlets. The cases I was reading about took place in Denmark. The exhibited peoples were prohibited from having relationships with Danish white women. But many of them did, and some pairs were even married and had lives together. This phenomenon was spun and eventually there were two many theories about what kind of Danish women would pursue relationships like these.
The first stated that it was women from the lowest classes who were engaging with foreign men: because they had such deplorable standards.
The second was that it was women from the aristocracy that were the culprits: because their indulgent, excessive lives had left them unfulfilled and in need of excitement.
Can you guess where each theory might have originated from?
Hi Aja,
I would like to begin by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your unit reflection. You seem to possess a treasure chest of words that are very delicately placed throughout your post, and I absolutely loved the way that your sentences flowed. At certain points, it almost felt like I could hear your voice reading the words because the sentence structure reminds me of the way you share your perspective in class – lovely!
As for the content of your post, I found myself reflecting along with you. When you brought up the idea that “just because something sounds correct/comforting/accurate does not mean that it is”, I was struck by the fact that this could also be a manifestation of Win-Rhetoric, for I have always pictured that form of rhetoric as being very overt and obvious. In addition, your application of ideas to human zoos is absolutely brilliant (although sad in a way) because it showcases both how people are spoken about and presented, and how this can have implications for people (including themselves) that resist these definitions (i.e. the Danish women that married the foreigners).