Edbauer does a good job of wrapping up what we have learned throughout the semester. The key point that I took from her argument, and everyone else we have read, was that rhetoric is always in movement. I liked her comparison of rhetoric to a city, and how we should think of it more as a verb then a noun. She writes “…we recall how we saw that “city” might better be conceptualized in terms of a verb—as in to city—as opposed to a noun. This grammatical oddity parallels the ways we speak in terms of rhetoric as a verb: we do rhetoric, rather than (just) finding ourselves in a rhetoric (pg. 13, para.1).”
It’s funny, because as I wrote the last three words in the quote, spell check insisted on changing it to “in rhetoric”; a more abstract vs. situational phrase. As we have seen throughout our readings, rhetoric is always in movement between people, situations, and places. Massumi and Brennan argued in their writings that we are always open to affect. If we have this type of openness, especially through our skin, then affect, emotions, and rhetoric, are never static or embedded in an object. It is in constant circulation, just like a virus Edbauer says.
Edbauer compares viruses to rhetoric. She writes about the baboon, cat, and C virus to use as an example of apparel evolution. An example I thought that tied in with apparel evolution was HIV seen within humans and monkeys. Both instances demonstrate how rhetoric is not situated in a particular place. You don’t see a specific origin because the rhetoric has blended between intensities and energies. “A rhetoric emerges already infected by the viral intensities that are circulating in the social field. Moreover, this same rhetoric will go on to evolve in apparel ways: between two “species” that have absolutely nothing to do with each other (Edbauer, pg. 14, para. 1).” I like how Edbauer compared rhetoric to evolution, because I believe rhetoric has evolved throughout the centuries, from Aristotle to the writers and philosophers of today. Just like specfic species evolved in particular ways, the evolution of rhetoric has evolved in different contexts.
The last point I would like to bring up is Edbauer’s example of “Keep Austin Weird”. This was a good demonstration of a rhetoric situation that has moved throughout different exigencies and audiences. But the content, or heart, of the rhetoric is still found throughout these different scenarios. Again, this goes to show that rhetoric is not embedded in a situation but is transmitted and affected throughout. Something that came across my mind when thinking about this was the different places that that Texas Fight song is played. The song can be heard at football games. But it is also played as the closing song for one of the bars on 6th street. Again, rhetoric in movement.
After reading about the different viewpoints on rhetoric, I believe I have a wider understanding of it. While there will never be an overall consensus of what exactly rhetoric is, I now have the basic knowledge and vocabulary to notice rhetoric in situations I would not have considered before.
It’s funny, because as I wrote the last three words in the quote, spell check insisted on changing it to “in rhetoric”; a more abstract vs. situational phrase. As we have seen throughout our readings, rhetoric is always in movement between people, situations, and places. Massumi and Brennan argued in their writings that we are always open to affect. If we have this type of openness, especially through our skin, then affect, emotions, and rhetoric, are never static or embedded in an object. It is in constant circulation, just like a virus Edbauer says.
Edbauer compares viruses to rhetoric. She writes about the baboon, cat, and C virus to use as an example of apparel evolution. An example I thought that tied in with apparel evolution was HIV seen within humans and monkeys. Both instances demonstrate how rhetoric is not situated in a particular place. You don’t see a specific origin because the rhetoric has blended between intensities and energies. “A rhetoric emerges already infected by the viral intensities that are circulating in the social field. Moreover, this same rhetoric will go on to evolve in apparel ways: between two “species” that have absolutely nothing to do with each other (Edbauer, pg. 14, para. 1).” I like how Edbauer compared rhetoric to evolution, because I believe rhetoric has evolved throughout the centuries, from Aristotle to the writers and philosophers of today. Just like specfic species evolved in particular ways, the evolution of rhetoric has evolved in different contexts.
The last point I would like to bring up is Edbauer’s example of “Keep Austin Weird”. This was a good demonstration of a rhetoric situation that has moved throughout different exigencies and audiences. But the content, or heart, of the rhetoric is still found throughout these different scenarios. Again, this goes to show that rhetoric is not embedded in a situation but is transmitted and affected throughout. Something that came across my mind when thinking about this was the different places that that Texas Fight song is played. The song can be heard at football games. But it is also played as the closing song for one of the bars on 6th street. Again, rhetoric in movement.
After reading about the different viewpoints on rhetoric, I believe I have a wider understanding of it. While there will never be an overall consensus of what exactly rhetoric is, I now have the basic knowledge and vocabulary to notice rhetoric in situations I would not have considered before.
Thanks for a great last post Donah!
ReplyDeleteI like the comparison that you and Edbauer make between rhetoric and evolution. It highlights that nothing happens in a vacuum. Beings evolve in response to the environment they find themselves in. This parallels rhetoric, in that each of us is a sort of "cultural product" of our social environment. For example, for people of Arizona, immigration is a very real and important exigence--an ill that Arizonans (not all, but many) feel should be at the forefront of the national agenda. For people in northern states, immigration is hardly an issue at all. Just as our DNA evolves in order to better respond to the realities of the external world, our rhetorical discourse evolves in response to the social constructs in our environment.
I also like the comparison between rhetoric and evolution (would that make Bitzer a creationist?)... You presented a really nice analysis which helped me to understand this material more. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThe connection of 6th street and the Texas fight song is funny. I work at a bar on 6th and our manager blasted a heavy Pantera song when he turned the lights on to close and get people out. The odd thing was that all the girls and sober guys seemed to be crushed and left immediately. The remaining heavily intoxicated alpha males decided that Pantera would make them rage, which made my job (door guy) very difficult.
ReplyDeleteLong example for a short lesson, but the rhetoric of everything is going to be different for each audience. What we took as the rhetoric to get people out of a bar quickly turned into an all out drunken brawl. I can't really say I didn't see this coming, but this just shows that analyzing your audience is one of the most critical points towards an effective rhetor.