Archive for November, 2007

I saw a link to definitions of rhetoric on Michael’s site. The first thing I noticed is that they came from a Stanford class on Gender and the History of Rhetoric. Then guess what I noticed. Oh, yes…not a female among all of the people who are quoted as defining rhetoric. I recognize that historically women’s views on this discipline have not been recorded (if, indeed, there were many women who were writing their views on this topic). However, there isn’t even a current definition attributed to a woman, and there are plenty of women writing about rhetoric now.

However, I then went to the site where the definitions were chosen from and there were plenty of women. Whew. Really, it bothered me because this discipline that I love (and I do — I think it is the basis for so much that we do) seems to be just another field that I’ve chosen (being in a technology field and having a minor in geology) that does not seem to have a balanced view. Not true for modern-day research and instruction, though. There are plenty of women writing about this discipline. Take, for instance, Sonja and Karen Foss (whom I’ve quoted in papers):

“Rhetoric is an action human beings perform when they use symbols for the purpose of communicating with one another . . , [and it] is a perspective humans take that involves focusing on symbolic processes.”

This is the crux of my argument in my thesis. We use symbols to communicate and that perspective that humans take is what makes the process interesting. Mostly because most people don’t really pay as much attention to the symbols they are using as those of us who study it do. They don’t look at how they place an image, what font they choose, what colors are chosen, or what wording is specifically chosen and how that will affect audience perspective.

I digress, however, because I didn’t want to go off on my dismay with the focus on male rhetoricians or my interests in a particular area of this discipline. Instead, I wanted to share more definitions and resources for those of you who are interested in rhetoric, methods of argument, and in understanding the components of persuasive writing/speech.

Wikipedia gives a good, albeit brief, overview of the history and use of the term “rhetoric.” You get the gist of rhetoric for what took me over a semester to study in ancient rhetorical studies. Even in the list of contemporary rhetoricians, however, there are very few women. Very unfortunate.

The staff/faculty in the Division of Classics at the University of Kentucky has posted a A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms with Examples.  I like this list because it really shows some of the great devices that are used in creating a rhetorical appeal.  Reall it’s because the list starts off with alliteration and I’ve long been a fan of alliteration.  I mean, just the word is beautiful in the way it rolls off the tongue.   Ahem.

BYU defines rhetoric in one page with some great links to discuss components of rhetoric.  They discuss two of the three main types of rhetorical appeal (pathos and logos — but where is ethos???).

Finally, Robert A. Harris shares a  Handbook of Rhetorical Devices (many of which will be redundant if you looked at Kentucky’s list first).  Harris, however, really goes more in depth with his explanation of the uses of rhetorical devices.  It’s not enough to just know what a device is and what the definition of it is.  It even more important to understand how it is used and how you could use it in your own writing and speaking.  You probably already do and don’t realize it.

I think I love rhetoric because of how it really is a part of every day of our lives.  We all use it.  It’s not limited to political candidates telling us what they want us to believe.  Each of us who has a website or blog uses it each day in the ways we choose to present ourselves.  Each of us uses it when we talk to others or when we write an email or memo.  We all use it, but we don’t always realize that we are using it.

(image of plato courtesy of wikipedia)