When it comes to the study of rhetoric, a scholar almost assumes that there is a concrete definition of the term. However, this label of discourse holds so much weight, not because of generality, but because of its depth. It can be seen as something that shapes content or a method for writers and speakers to seek power over audiences. The major elements include rhetorical situation, audience, proofs and the five canons (invention, arrangement, memory, style, and delivery). Writers never acknowledge an exclusive audience; rather they construct one and try to actively address them. A rhetor may use three sorts of textual appeals to persuade audiences, which Aristotle called ethos, pathos, and logos.
The essay aims to define the grand term of “rhetoric” and it does so by dissecting it into elements so one can understand it by parts. I feel as though this particular article is a bit redundant because it is just a collection of theoretical definitions pertaining to the study of rhetoric. Thus, it just provides a broad overview of everything, and not much insightful argument or theme. Nonetheless, it is a useful gathering of information to the introduction of rhetorical thinking.
I agree that the word Rhetoric holds an insane amount of weight. It can not be easily defined or explained for that matter. From my own experiences with speech writing and writing in general I see how a writer uses pathos, ethos, and logos to appeal to a specific audience. For example, when I was in my Speech class last Spring many people wrote speeches on the legalization of Marijuana. When writing a speech for college students, a student would know that this is topic would be of interest to them and something that they probably felt as well. These students considered their audience as well as pathos, logos, and ethos when writing.
ReplyDeleteI relate to your first line about expecting a concrete definition, but (like the rest of us) you have accepted that one is not to be had. i guess the way we're supposed to figure it out is by reading a multitude of these repetitive articles and gather bits of information from each. i relate to the idea of constructing an audience and actively addressing them, that very much ties into these blog posts and trying to imagine who you are writing for and if anyone besides the professor and us students will read them. i wonder if you think you have a grasp on the ideas, or if you feel like there are gaps in your knowledge of them.
ReplyDelete