George Kennedy offers a unique perspective on the idea of rhetoric. I am surprised that he not only wrote of the evolution of rhetoric, but also that rhetoric is a matter of energy. It makes sense though because you need energy from both the speaker and the audience to keep communication and rhetoric flowing.
In his first thesis, Kennedy points out that “rhetoric is prior to speech (pg.4).” Some people would find this idea strange because they feel communication and rhetoric is the same thing. But as Kennedy writes “Speech cannot take place without some force or motivation to articulate an utterance (pg.4).” In order to communicate an idea or argument you have to have a drive to do so. That is why many people are told to write about what they have a passion for. And as many college students know, when we are forced to write something that we don’t care about it is extremely hard to do. No matter how short the assignment is, sometimes it feels impossible to come up with words and ideas to express. That is why most of us will wait to till the last possible second to do the assignment hoping something will come to us. But it is hard to say something when you have no motivation to say it.
With Kennedy’s second thesis, he writes that “The receiver’s interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker’s intent in determining the meaning (pg.7).” As I read this statement, I thought about the fable of the “little boy who cried wolf”. In the end of the fable, the boy had told numerous lies about a wolf to the townspeople. When an actual wolf did come, the boy warned everyone but they didn't believe him. This tale not only points out the importance of a rhetor’s ethos, but also the fact that the receiver already has prior inclinations about what do when he or she receives a message. In all actuality, not only does the receiver not have to respond to the message, but they can just ignore listening or reading it all together.
But as Kennedy describes later in the paragraph, communication that was has no effect with an audience still allows the speaker to say what he or she has to say. He uses the example of the bird that cries out thinking there is a predator and is ignored by others. Kennedy says the bird was still able to express what it needed to say. But this got me thinking about if this reasoning could be applicable to humans. Would most of us be satisfied by just expressing what we need to say with no affect on our receivers? Kennedy writes that our communication could have impact in the future, but what if it doesn't?
That's a good question. It sounds like a short road to frustration: To be desperately trying to communicate, but with no response/interest from others. Think of a friendship: Would it last long if you were doing all the talking, animated and excited, trying to get your friend to engage, while she sat there with a blank stare? I'd move on to greener pastures quickly.
ReplyDeleteI agree, It can be incredibly frustrating when you feel a need to communicate something, but your words fall on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteNotwithstanding future impact, I still agree with Kennedy that this kind of speech act (one which receives no interest/response) still "may successfully fulfill the speaker's need to speak--to put himself (sic) 'on record' as it were" (8). In fact, I think some people feel compelled to speak even when it seems certain that their speech wont elicit a favorable response.
I certainly wouldn't be satisfied if this was the case always (who would want to be perpetually ignored?), but I still think this kind of speech has occasional purpose. It puts you "on the record" (8) to use Kennedy's words, and it fulfills an internal desire to express your view of things. This, in and of itself, is pretty important (for me). An outward expression of our views helps to cement, in our minds, that which we stand for. We're blessed to live in a society where our right to express our opinions (however unwanted or misguided) is still protected.
Here's an interesting analogy I was thinking of as I read your last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteIf a tree falls in in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
It's a simple question, but actually depends a lot on definitions.
If to you a sound is something that someone hears and can recognize, no, it does not make a sound.
If to you a sound is the vibrations in the air created by the impact that (if they came into contact with someone's eardrums) would create a sound, then yes, it does make a sound.
It is all a matter of perception and your own definition of what makes up a sound, or in a more specific case, communication. It is as much of a communication as you believe it is a communication, even if it does effectively nothing.