Survival of the Rhetorical...est

including human culture, rhetoric is a powerful force for the survival and well-being of the individual,the family, and the social group as these exist at any given moment.

 This quote from Kennedy stands out to me as indicating the scalability of rhetoric in human society. Our interpretations of what Rhetoric is are innumerable: ask any student, or even ask any teacher, and you'll probably get a different answer. Broader theories that these interpretations fall into exist, and have no shortage of labels which are tangential to the point I'm going after here. What strikes me particularly is how broad the spectrum of what we call "rhetoric" is both in what it contains - for instance, many would argue that something as minute as the smell of a woman's perfume or the angle at which one's glasses rest upon one's nose, and by the same token many argue that rhetoric's domain is the lofty political speech that changes the fate of nations - and in who performs it. Kennedy argues that many animals have their own types of rhetorics, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, we could argue that entire nations present their own rhetorical arguments.

a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status 

 Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

 Of course, a nation is not a thinking being in the way an animal or a human is. It is an amalgam, composed of a broad variety of people. They are not always multicultural or even united, but a nation presents its own kind of rhetoric as a medley of those within it. It might seem common sense that the stances and positions of a state originate from within the government or official ruling bodies, but is this the case? Let's take a look at an extreme example, our own nation, the United States of America. Without a doubt, our government plays a major role in creating the image we present to the world, whether as individuals we approve of it or not. Yet if you consider the construction that is the "Image of the United States", a cornucopia of factors pile in. We export culture, technology, finance, technical skills and even our own stereotypes to the entire world daily. We present ourselves in particular ways, some good, some bad, for all to see, and around that we create a mythos of what America is. The simplest manifestations of this mythos, for all countries, not just ours, is in stereotypes, both positive and negative. I won't go into them here, but surely when you think of certain countries specific traits and values comes to mind.

This goes beyond simple impressions as well. The rhetoric of nations centers first and foremost on their continued prosperity and survival. The most basic image that a nation can project through its policies, people, structures and actions is that of Strength. Authoritarian governments, strong armies, vast wealth, strong defenses and power projection are all evidence that countries present for the argument that they are strong. It is this image of strength that is often more effective than large numbers of soldiers. For example, look at Switzerland. As Europe blazed around them during WW2, they were left alone in a position of neutrality. Why? The Swiss have always been militaristic, their citizens were motivated, their natural defenses strong and the reward for conquering them would be little. Like an animal bristling against a predator, they present an argument as a nation that it is in no way worth it to attack them. Like Kennedy says, "Stripped to
its bare minimum, rhetoric is a defense mechanism(10)." These rhetorics exist to ensure the longevity and prosperity of the state, while those unable to present these rhetorics fall. Viewing this as the only factor in the fall of a nation is of course dramatically oversimplifying, but it may not be too much of a stretch to view history as a kind of "Survival of the Rhetorical" on a wider scale than Kennedy discusses.

Aced the Test; Don't know the Material

An interesting point in Damasio's Descarte's Error that really stood out for me was the fact that no matter what tests those with acknowledged issues in their brain functions simply sailed right through. For Elliot in particular, he even demonstrated having a "superior intellect" that showed abilities that were "superior or average (Damasio,41)." Damasio further elaborates on this when he points out that "patients with marked abnormalities of social behavior can perform normally on many and even most intelligence tests (Damasio, 41)."

So what does this mean to us? Obviously it means that intelligence tests aren't designed to divine who has "marked abnormalities of social behavior," but in a more broad sense, this hole in the concept of "intelligence" has some implications on us.

As a society, we love tests. The IQ test tells us how smart we are, we take standardized tests such as the TAAS or TAKS to show our abilities and progress as children, we take examinations like the SAT to get into higher education, we grill ourselves with exam after exam in University to show our mastery of the subjects and get a final letter grade. We love to play the numbers game. Here is your result: Good job! You got 90%! You have an IQ of 110! These answers are concrete, we can put them in perspective and feel good about ourselves. It's fast, solid feedback. And it even takes part in our social interactions. He has a high IQ, he is so smart! He scored high on test, he's really good at this (or conversely, he's a nerd, let's stay away from him).

http://inksnow.blogspot.com/

Of course, there's a bit of a problem with this. Standardized testing has always been a fickle creature, and it's easy to understand why. The original IQ test originated in 1905 with Alfred Binet and has been in use in some form or other ever since. The test has proven invaluable in identifying children of special needs and practical military testing, so don't think that I am simply hating it for the sake of hating it, and many other standardized tests fall to the same problems. These problem lie in that Intelligence tests such as Binet's IQ test examine very specific cognitive skills and are incredibly dependent on proper administration. Often what is really being tested is the environment in which the one being examined was raised or the ways of thinking that have been imparted to them. I'm going to steal an example here.

How are a pair of scissors and a copper pan alike?

One point answer:  They are both household utensils.
Two point answer:  They are both made of metal.

Why is the second worth more than the first? Which doesn't belong:  clam, pig, oven, rose.
The correct answer is the oven, because the rest are living things.
But a child may say rose, since the others relate to making dinner.
Or the clam, since clams live in the water, and the rest live on land.

 -Dr. C. George Boeree
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html


 Examples of this type of subjective view of Intelligence can often be traced back to last 19th Century, early 20th Century New Imperialist thought patterns. In seeking a justification for taking "stewardship" over less developed regions of the world, and acknowledging the now rapidly expanding concepts of Darwinian conflict theory (or in many cases, Social Darwinism) and the concept of Genetics, many Imperialist nations put great effort into satisfying themselves that they had the right to rule and "guide" these areas because they were simply of superior genetic stock. Scientific testing of this was widespread and generally came back with what we could consider comical results but were often taken very seriously. For example, Craniometry used the shape of the head to establish details such as intelligence and character. Coincidentally, the cranial shape coinciding with the highest intelligence and best character was found among Europeans.

Testing is not inherently evil, but the extent to which we use it to judge ourselves and others is problematic. There are far too many variables, far too many problems that can arise, and most importantly far too many different types of intelligence in existence. We all know the people who excel at any piece of schoolwork but possess no "street smarts" or even "common sense" (I'd consider myself among them if I was better at the schoolwork part). Many kinds of intelligence that exist are nearly impossible to nail down, and examinations can have extreme difficulty catching defined but elusive "flaws" that we may posses as exhibited by our friend Elliot. So the question is, what is the value of testing in your life? How does it affect the way in which you look at yourself? And if these values were to suddenly be revealed as irrelevant, how would your perception of yourself change?

Special Snowflake Syndrome

An item that really caught my eye in this reading was the exploration of the concept of the public as "the greatest sophists (Smith-Hyde 446)" and the often negative view we see in writing about the public in general. Many terms are assigned to the group conscious, from  "the public" to "the herd" to simply "they(Smith-Hyde 446)." We often assign to this group consciousness an almost zombie-like type of conformism, but usually with some pretty words to spruce things up. It is in conformism that they so called evil of the mass consciousness lies. As people pool together in larger numbers and subsume themselves to the group, there is often an observed tendency to simply follow the crowd, cease critical thinking and obey the common opinions held by the mass. This is argued in the reading to not be entirely true or a bad thing, and I would agree with that. The problem that sprung to mind most to me when reading this was not some concept of how groups are bad and we should all attempt to be our own unique snowflakes obeying only ourselves, but the eagerness of people to condemn the other, as lacking their own conscious thoughts and instead being simply content to obey the group will.

I am not saying that this does not happen. Certainly there are probably plenty of people out there completely willing to simply go with the flow, to obey the will of the mass and chase after only with "the herd" wants. It is an amusing phenomenon how we often attribute group motivations to individuals simply by virtue of where they are or how they are acting. How do you know what they are actually thinking? For the rhetor, it is particularly crucial to not be caught up in viewing others, as simple conformist drones, easily controlled by public opinions and beliefs. We have to be very careful in understanding the differences in the "mass" and the individual, and most importantly understand the similarities between "us" and "them." After much incoherent rambling, I think that concept is the most important part of this blog post. Attributing to yourself unique motivations or thought processes is a recipe for making mistakes when dealing with others, because they are (usually) every bit as conscious and motivated as you are, even if it is not readily apparent. This knowledge should ideally help in considering just how to appeal to others.

Edit: Oh hey I read and blogged the wrong reading. WELP

Visual Anaylsis

This image originates as a 1945 World War II propaganda poster produced in America. As such, it has a fairly particular audience consisting of the civilians and potential soldiers in America at the time. During this period there was an incredibly active propaganda culture that produced thousands of artifacts promoting everything from enlisting to growing your own vegetables to help win the war. The audience would have been inundated with these images and accustomed to more typical depictions of the enemy. This poster seems to take this demonization and increase it several degrees.

The artwork here is designed to evoke a variety of intensely negative emotions. It is heavily loaded with imagery to an extent that it almost takes one's breath away. Fitting for a propaganda poster, the most vivid emotions that the poster produces are hate and fear. Our eyes are drawn to the leering face of Hitler, darkly shaded and wrinkled as he gazes past a scene of destruction. Wreathed in the flames of a burning city, he stares at us dispassionately, inhumanly. Not caring about the destruction he has caused, and instead looking towards the viewer, coming to destroy their lives and everything they hold dear. He is a figure of imminent threat and doom which makes him all the more frightening, and his direct gaze gives an uneasiness as he looks to his next target to destroy. Around him is a tragedy that anyone in the target audience would find despicable. To the side, a church burns. The flame and smoke contributes to Hitler's fiery aura as the Christian morality so dear to most of 1945 America goes up in flames. In the very foreground, a wounded child is crying as a woman, presumably his mother, lies stabbed in the heart. The child is sitting in a pool of blood, gripping the dead woman's hand futilely. A sign saying “God Bless Our Home” lies discarded on a pile of rubble next to the woman's corpse. The message is clear: God no longer has a place here, this is now the land of Hitler.To the side, a man with a noose around his neck lies dead. If the man is the child's father, which is left up to interpretation, then this is the scene of a whole family utterly destroyed by Hitler. All of these elements are assembled to cause the viewer to hate the one responsible for committing these atrocities, and at the same time fear that they will happen to themselves. At the same time, the crying child elicits from us a sense of pity for his loss and abject horror toward what is happening around him.We feel compassion for him, and worry about whether he will survive and live on in such a hellish environment butchered by war with no parents left to care for him. 

“THIS IS THE ENEMY” is emblazoned at the top of the poster, further labeling Hitler as the target of the negative emotions produced by the imagery below. The hate and fear produced ties into a clear line of reasoning. This is the enemy, he is responsible for these horrors. We must take revenge on him for doing such horrible things and to prevent them from happening to ourselves. How do we do that? The other pieces of propaganda that would have been very familiar to the audience provides the answer: join the army and fight, conserve resources for the war effort, buy war bonds, grow your own food. Contribute everything that you can contribute to defeat this monstrous villain.

The poster asks you to believe that these atrocities really are happening. That religion and good values are being put to flame, families are being destroyed, children are crying and cities are being ravaged. It then tells you to connect these occurrences with a face, that of Hitler, branding him as the one responsible for them. If you accept this interpretation of the poster, there is then little alternative but to hate and fear Hitler as a monstrous criminal and do everything that you can to defeat him as soon as possible.

The image has several aspects that would appeal to different groups on different levels. For example, those that are religious would be heavily effected by the sight of the burning church in the background. Another group that would be particularly interested in this poster would be those who value the family and the home due to the three figures that could possibly compose a family and the “God Bless Our Home” sign that is lying to the side. This imagery of a broken, butchered family would be particularly vivid to them. On a similar note, those with children would be particularly struck by the crying child as they might connect him with their own child being placed in such a situation. On a broader scale, the vast injustices and evil presented here would appeal to the quick temper of youths who could be easily stirred up to do something rash after seeing scenes of destruction, death and American values being crushed, such as joining the military. The elderly, who fear to lose what they have for lack of time to regain it, might also be moved by the scene of destruction if they accepted the threat as urgent enough to effect them, or out of fear for their children.

If anything can be said about this poster, it is that it is an intense piece of visual rhetoric almost on an overbearing scale. The vividness and graphic depictions serve almost as a blunt object that the artist uses to beat the audience into feeling the emotions he intends, but the weight of that object alone makes this piece particularly remarkable.

Aristotle and Makin' Babies

There is something deep in the American consciousness that revolts against the concept of “the well born man” as Aristotle puts it (II.15.20). This of course is almost humorously ironic when you look at it in the perspective of how deep and prominent our prejudices were in the past and, regretfully, still are in many cases, but is a serious issue to consider when examining Aristotle's ideas of character. When looking at these concepts, however, we must keep in mind that the very idea of all men (and women) being equal is an incredibly new one. We only have to look at the philosophy of Imperialism that gripped the western world hardly even a century ago to see just how deep rooted the idea of ancestry and race superiority were. Aristotle, writing well over two millenniums ago, naturally has a drastically different outlook from our modern perspective.

This may give us something of a pass from having to classify the hero of our story as a bigot or any other such term that is entirely pointless to label a dead man with, but does form a curious position in his argument on character. It is from lineage that Aristotle argues man takes some of the shape of his character. A “good birth implies ancestral distinction (II.15.19)” but not necessarily being born from nobility or wealth, as to Aristotle most of the well-born “are poor creatures(II.15.24). This is a very nuanced stance that Aristotle is taking. While he is arguing that lineage and birth are important parts of developing character, he breaks from the traditional position of connecting good birth to only those who are wealthy or of distinguished noble stock. This is very progressive of Aristotle, but at the same time problematic as it leaves open the question of just what does it mean to come “of a fine stock(II.15.24).” As ambiguous as it may be, this concept of birth and ancestry playing a role in the shaping of character, according to Aristotle making them become more ambitious, is not something I personally support.

While this could certainly be interpreted as a kind of proto-genetics, I would instead argue that these character traits are born not from breeding, but rather from the environments in which the products of this “fine stock” are raised. It is the same for Aristotle's further arguments in the chapter, of generations having a “varying yield(II.15.26)” in which occasional bursts of exceptional men are produced and then later subside, as Aristotle rightly puts it, when “decadence sets in(II.15.28).” This decay is not the product of their birth, but the environments in which they are raised and the expectations placed upon them by those around them.

These arguments against Aristotle's positions may seem painfully simple or common sense, but like I said earlier, we have the benefit of nearly 2500 years of science and psychology on our side, shaping our own positions on the subject. And finally, we have to be careful not to be terribly overbearing with the sheer amount of our smugness and self righteousness when looking at a concept that is, through no fault of the author, now “outdated.”