11-18 Post

Postmodernism’s origins revolved around the strategic readings of Marx and Freud along with global movements and events.  Bakhtin’s work in ethics and literary theory and emphasis on moral philosophy were reminiscent of earlier rhetoricians, such as Plato and Aristotle.  He focused on ethics and aesthetics in regard to the uniqueness of the self and the inability to remain neutral on immoral or unethical subjects or matters of work.  His three schematic models of the human psyche were used in order to develop a sense of identity.  His idea that identity is not something that belongs merely to the individual, and rather belongs to a group as a whole is very similar to the concept that emotion and personal feeling should be removed from and argument, as no one person can have property over that emotion or take personal offense when another disagrees with them because argument is not personal.  Perhaps identity is not personal either, and if that and the previous of emotions are meant to be devoid in a person’s argument, statement, or being then how ethically does that make sense? How does one keep their moral compass aligned when they cannot possess their own identity and are not mean to feel anything when they are argued against or proven wrong? We like to think that we can stand above the emotion and be selfless and emotionless when people refute our arguments, but is it not human nature to disagree simply for the fact that your opinion is wrong and someone else’s is right—especially if yours is proven false, invalid, or lackluster? Identity can be regarded as that which is socially assigned to each of us, or the hat we choose to wear based on what society offers us, so if we remove that hat and there’s no sense of identity is there also no sense of self? And if there is no identity and no self then how are we meant to take a stance and create and support our own arguments?

Maria W. Stewart’s upbringing of education and religion allowed her to have a very interesting understanding about inalienable rights that was ahead of her time, especially for women to have.  Her accessibility to books, and tendency for independent thought was remarkable as it allowed for her the capacity to fight for civil rights.  In her lecture she stated that just as white people regardless of their gender did not want to be laborers, and how could they even fathom a life of servitude.  This comparison among many others along with her opinion of slavery as a horror and she even claimed her knowledge and understanding of religion to be useful in backing up her claims.  When conveying her opinions Maria W. Stewart had to put a lot of emphasis on her style, and her ability to connect with her audience, especially because of her gender, and especially because of the group of people that she was advocating for.

On the other side, Fredrick Douglass’ understanding of his African American society, hardships and discrimination, along with his past in slavery very influential in his writings about slavery and the like.  This ethos is successful for Douglass for his argument to provide an understanding of the treatment of slaves.  His emphasis of freedom and basic principles were revolutionary not only because of their content, but also because of the methods by which those ideas were relayed as well as who they were coming from.  The details of what travesties occurred to slaves was stylistically portrayed in a very shocking and real way. 

In wrapping up the ARCS text the ideas of composition, delivery and memory are important to a rhetorician’s understanding of how to properly use rhetoric in order to convince an audience.   The comparison between spoken discourse and written composition has drastically changed since ancient times as it used to “not [be] fashionable to do one’s own writing,” but today a person is intellectually measured by their ability to write, and to write well.  However, the rhetors did believe in the importance of composing texts that were stylistically appealing, with correctness, clarity, appropriateness, and kairos in order to convey their arguments most effectively to their audience.  Today we use these same conventions, and a writer’s prowess is measures against these tools and knowledge of them. 

Similarly delivery of written discourse was imperative to master.  They focused on gestures, and all nonverbal communication to improve their delivery and to even help with memory.  The importance placed on memory was much different than it is today, we look at memorization as a rare form of proficiency and with our media center world and the accessibility to information, people generally do not take it upon themselves to memorize facts; whereas memorization was more common that writing in the past.  This change is indicative of human development and dependency, and as Vico claimed that all knowledge is based on argument and conviction so too is oral rhetoric dependent on memorization and a complete understanding of the topic.  Written arguments stop once the piece is published, shared or reviewed, often the writer is not obligated to respond to their original thoughts after the fact, but once a speech is spoken their writer is not longer afforded the luxury of distance from his argument, but rather he is bound in the moment, submissive to the kairos and must respond accordingly to possible mishaps, changes, forgetfulness, and audience disagreement.