Consider this . . . Week 3

As this course is designed to offer substantial instruction and practice across various modes of literacy by directly engaging public argument, the blog project offers each of you the opportunity to do just that: now that each cohort has named and configured a blog, you are now prepared to advance public arguments of your own.

Each week, I will post a prompt, related to our class discussions and/or current events, for bloggers and respondents to consider (i.e. the “Consider this . . .” series of posts). These prompts are designed to frame your work within the context of our course and guide your approach, but you are welcome to explore any subject or text you choose. My hope is that you can tailor these blog posts and responses to your own personal and professional interests, making them relevant to and representative of your unique perspectives and experiences.

Please keep in mind that those who post this wek should do so by midnight Tuesday, February 3; respondents should post their work by midnight Saturday, February 7.

Without further ado . . .

Consider: ethos

In his treatise On Rhetoric, Aristotle argues that ethos “should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person” (1.2.42), which is in many ways a practical and fair suggestion. In contemporary practice, public arguments—especially those advanced by ‘public figures,’ be they well-known writers, celebrities, public servants, or ‘talking heads’—are often inextricable from the character or reputation of the person or group advancing the argument. This presents an interesting problem: to what degree can we discount reputation? Should we? When you judge ethos (i.e. the credibility of a given speaker/author), do your conclusions depend more on the speaker’s reputation or on the particular rhetorical moment/act (or both, and in what measure)?

Welcome, Spring 2009

Welcome, newcomers, to the Engaging the Polis blog. This project, now beginning its second semester, brings the writing we do for class to a broader, more public, forum. This space will serve as the 'hub' through which you may link to your and/or other cohorts' blogs, but it will also serve as a shared space where I will routinely post summaries of class discussions, lecture notes, et al. relevant or supporting material that is appropriate to share in an open-access forum. Those enrolled in class as well as visitors to our site(s) are welcome to post comments, submit questions, and share related materials.

By way of introduction, here are some questions will explore this semester, taken from today's class:

What is rhetoric?

Aristotle defines rhetoric as "having the ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion" (from On Rhetoric, Book I, Chapter 2, 1-2). We will spend more time explicating this definition and exploring how it works in a contemporary context.

In his 1776 Philosophy of Rhetoric, George Campbell advanced this definition of rhetoric: "the art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end[. . .]the ends [ . . .] reducible to four; [. . .] to enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination, to move the passions, or to influence the will." This last 'end,' "to influence the will," cogently reveals the power of language and literacy and the central importance of ethics in rhetorical practice, something we will explore in depth throughout the semester.

Given these definitions (there are, of course, a corpus of others we will also consider), it is clear that rhetoric is concerned with argument and persuasion; it involves both agency and reception and, therefore, often involves opposition . . .but opposition is not always necessary: as the rhetorician and scholar Andrea Lunsford offers, rhetoric may be used for a variety of purposes, to

Inform
Convince
Explore
Make Decisions
Meditate or Pray

and I would add to that list,

to Facilitate Self-expression.

Throughout the semester, we will return to these claims, test them, and understand how and when they might be accurate or inaccurate. By the end, I hope you will have developed your own perspectives about the scope, purpose, and limits of rhetoric.

What is a polis?

Strictly speaking, a polis refers to the Ancient Greek city-state, but it is also used to describe a 'social organization,’ a 'public,' or a 'body of citizens.' We will employ all of these definitions in our study of rhetoric and writing.

What do we mean by 'public argument' and what are its forms?

With this, I am hoping to understand rhetoric not only in the strict academic sense, but as it relates to our everyday experiences and interactions. Topics and issues advanced in the public forum, however we define 'public,' are fair game. While topics may range from the serious and the contentious, the local and the global, the popular and the esoteric, understand that there is also room for levity.

The method by which these topics are carried are the forms we will discuss; the form, then, is one method “by which discourse is adapted to its end” and is, therefore, rhetorical. Indeed, if, as Lunsford suggests, ‘everything is an argument,’ then there are almost endless opportunities to explore themes, topics, or issues that are important, relevant, and useful to you during your engagement with this project.

So, once again, welcome. I look forward with optimism to what's in store.

1QE: First Quarterly Essay

As we addressed in class, this course invites you to engage in public debate and discussion; therefore, as an opening exercise, please write a brief (2-3 page, or thereabouts) essay that describes and argues a claim that is important to you. Consider this: if you were to become known for advancing a particular cause or for trumpeting a particular issue, what would it be? What matters to you enough to talk to others about it? What might be your own personal "soap-box" argument?

Please turn in your typed essays in class on Thursday, January 22. See you then!