There was a time where ancient cities of Napata, Meroe, Axum, and Timbuktu where black African literacy was not exclusively oral.  In addition, Nubian and Ethiopian societies were high functioning socially and politically.  Campbell examines a few publications concerning ancient African societies and their history of rhetoric.

Ruth Finnegan who published Oral Literature in Africa, compares African oratory to those of classical Greece and Rome expressing that they both are a literary expression with aesthetics as well as practical appeal.  Finnegan finds among ancient African societies such as the Mbala of Congo that Aristotle’s three kinds of rhetorical speeches exist: deliberative, judicial, and epideictic.   Campbell also looks at George Kennedy’s publication where he studies various African cultures and compares them to components of classical rhetoric.  Historically, Africa has varied and complex uses of oral and written language, and general theory or concept of rhetoric there must take these uses into account.

Studying ancient Egyptian and Nubian rhetoric, there are appeals to a divine ethos which may have been a common feature of royal discourse at this time.  Thus supporting Kennedy’s claim that in traditional societies “the primary means of persuasion is the authority or ethos of the speaker.”  King Piye of Upper and Lower Egypt was concerned with moral instruction than moral victory.

Opposed to this ancient culture in Africa, the Meroites developed a culture independent of Egyptian influence.  Values assigned to hieroglyphics are quite different making the script impossible to interpret.

Campbell’s essay looks at the verbal practices of ancient African civilizations.  Empires such as Nubia, Axum, and Mali all go against what is perceived to be “traditional” for Africa.  Some nonliterate cultures like Mali have persuasive orators, but unlike one of a Greek tradition.  Civilizations like Nubia and Axum exhibit writing in royal inscriptions.  In addition, metaphors and proverbs are seen in Mali’s traditions as well as the speech of the griot.  African traditions are unlike what we may view them as; they are just as diverse as Western cultures.

What rhetorical African tradition surprised you?

Gage reviews Knoblauch’s and Brannon’s book, Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing and the concept that modern composition pedagogy is limited based on the natural roots of the relationship between knowledge and discourse.  Gage argues that if this is true, then we would have certain teaching techniques that assume no intrinsic connection between the act of knowing and the act of writing.  Consequently, we would abandon such techniques in favor of ones that do support the connection.  If writing contains knowledge, Gage suggests there should be a new pedagogical approach that includes a transaction between people.  Gage commends Knoblauch’s and Brannon’s book but admits that it is flawed.  Knoblauch and Brannon see classical rhetoric as whole unified system of composing when considering knowledge.  This in turn causes us to make a “straw man” out of classical rhetoric.  Gage believes the two authors try to stir up controversy on purpose on the matter, but there needs to be more valid arguments.

Knoblauch’s and Brannon’s book argues that there is an absolute distinction between classical and modern rhetoric; they are greatly opposed.  Gage reminds us that these two authors are coming from a privileged view, seeing classical as wrong and modern as right.  They become hypocritical to Gage when they suggest that teachers should read Aristotle and Cicero.  These authors blame the classical rhetoric for the reason why our textbooks are so boring to read.  Gage believes there are too many oversimplifications in Knoblauch’s and Brannon’s book that seem unreasonable and on the dramatic side.

Due to the bashing these authors commit in their book, they create a false picture of what classical rhetoric really contains.  Additionally, they fail to recognize that their ideas have much in common with classical rhetoric theory, especially with Aristotle.  Yet, Knoblauch and Brannon accuse Aristotle of viewing truth as a stable entity who is unaffected by discourse and knowledge.  Gage points out that Aristotle is not one-sided as Knoblauch and Brannon make him out to be.

Gage reveals that these authors only associate classical rhetoric against that of modern.  Subsequently, modern thinkers are piled altogether instead of being seen as individualistic.  Thinkers such as Booth and Perelman go against the grain of this pile.  Perhaps they were ignored because although they support main claims of these authors, they also argue against modern thought and support some classical ones.

Conclusively, Gage makes it evident that these two types of rhetoric are not so much black and white as Knoblauch and Brannon claim.  Thus, they should not be labeled as “good” or “bad” rhetoric.  As teachers of writing, we must consider both forms of rhetoric and not be obliged to think of them in an ethical sense.

So, what do you think?  Do you favor one type of rhetoric over the other?  Is one more ethically “good” than the other?  Why would these authors view modern as “right” and classical as “wrong”?

Schiappa (a scholar) states that not everything is rhetoric when it comes to a “rhetorical turn”.  Author of the article, “Towards a Rhetoric of Communication, With Special Reference to the History of Korean Rhetoric,” Jon Sung-Gi suggests that there are three ways to discuss Korean Rhetoric.  Firstly, apply Western tradition to Korean.  Second, examine translated terms and figure out the implications and historical context in rhetorical terms.  Lastly, creating a new rhetorical frame for both Korean and Western traditions.  The last approach seems familiar to the question of whether or not it’s possible to have a universal rhetoric.  Sung-Gi only makes reference to the second and third approach within this paper, believing in its utmost importance.

The author notes that terms in themselves such as “translation” and “rhetoric” take on a different meaning within cultural context.  Taking the word “susa”, for example, has its roots in Japan, but later came to be a Korean word.  Looking at the Korean version of the Japanese book of rhetoric, there are no findings of the word.  Referring the history, the Enlightenment Period (Western tradition) had a huge influence on Korean rhetoric.  Japanese hesitated to use the term “susa” because it referred to language as ornamental.  Thus, Koreans had the same problem.  Contrastingly, “susa” refers to something totally different in China.  “Susa” is “a virtue proposed in an ethical context.”  In the traditional times of China, the discourse on “susa” was above all ethical discourses.  So, referring to Sung-Gi’s argument, we must be careful when we use terms and how we translate these terms since there are varying outlooks on the term from many cultures.

Sung-Gi proposes that when it comes to Korean rhetoric, there should be a general frame for rhetorical comparison.  As by definition, rhetoric is known to be “the art of speaking well”.  Lauren Pernot affirms Sung-Gi’s notion by declaring that this definition fails to persuade us.  Additionally, Kenneth Burke’s idea of mental and emotional energy does not fit accordingly in this category.  It is pertinent to Sung-Gi to relate to rhetoric as a communicative viewpoint when dealing with a Korean one.  This way, it can be seen as an intercultural standpoint, the approach the concerns Sung-Gi the most.  He emphasizes that “rhetoric is inseparable from hermeneutic”.  Hermeneutic is the art of communication.  For Sung-Gi, it isn’t that simple.  To him, rhetoric is viewed as, “above all an epistemological framework to help us understand rhetoric from the point of view of intercultural comparison.”

There are five modes of rhetoric according to Foss and Foss: conquest rhetoric, conversion rhetoric, benevolent rhetoric, advisory rhetoric, and invitational rhetoric.

Stigmas on women’s rhetoric have existed throughout history and across the cultural board; but do such stigmas exist in modern day?  Female writers have a tougher time breaking ground than do their male counterparts.  This stated, why does gender affect the authority of a work?  Examining females who are specifically humor writers, the ground has only been paved for them as of recently.  This being the case, what will our future look like for aspiring women writers, especially those who want to pursue comedy?  Tina Fey, writer of the memoir Bossypants, explains the critique women face such as the myth that women are not funny.  The list does not stop there on what women cannot do according to societal standards.  Fey, originating as a writer for Saturday Night Live, empowered and proved that women can be just as entertaining; she set a trend and now there are many aspiring humor writers and comedians who happen to be female.  Studying other cultures, do they have a more progressive outlook on women’s rhetoric, especially when it comes to humor writing, or are they even more behind than American culture?  Perhaps it is women’s own view of themselves that holds them back from being equivalent to men.

In 1988, Linda K. Kerber wrote an essay titled, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Women’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History,” which observes women throughout history and their perceived role in society.  Noting Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations on the situation of women in American society:

In no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways that are always different.  (Tocqueville, 1835)

Tocqueville uses the metaphor of “sphere” to describe that women do lead a separate world apart from men.  In historical discourse, historians found that notions of women’s sphere permeated the language (Kerber 10).  In 1968, Kraditor published an anthology of documents called Up from the Pedestal, where women’s sphere is compared to the men’s.  In it, she notes that men never really had a sphere since it has been the world and all of its activities (Kerber 12).  In addition, the separation of spheres is linked back to the Industrial Revolution where thought was given to men’s and women’s occupations.  Women of different classes held various positions in industrialization.  As the classes became more distinctive, social attitudes towards women became polarized (Kerber 12).  Kerber furthermore emphasizes the public and privates modes of life, specifically gender relations.  There has been a control of space over the course of history when it comes to defeating the female sex, according to Engels.  The home was understood to be a woman’s place, but it was later controlled by man.  Household management lost its public character and became a private service (Kerber 13).

Tina Fey talks about her best comedic friend, Amy Poehler.  One of the many reasons why these women succeeded vastly in the comedy realm was because they never wanted to play the role of someone’s wife or mother, a domestic role.  It’s the association of domesticity and women that has a negative connotation.  Tina recalls a time where she was working with Amy and Amy made a vulgar “unladylike” joke across the table.  Jimmy Fallon remarked humorously, “Stop that!  It’s not cute!  I don’t like it.”  Amy then retorted with the fact that she doesn’t care if he likes it!  Thus, making it clear that she was a woman who didn’t aim to make her bits cute or play the wife or girlfriend in the male cast scenes.  Women should be able to do (or write) what they want and not care about whether it’s liked or not.  Tina Fey says she likes to think of this notion of freedom to be outside the label whenever she hears, “Jerry Lewis says women aren’t funny,” or “Christopher Hitchens says women aren’t funny.”  (Fey 130)  She continues that it is an arrogant move to say just because you are not a fan of something, does not mean it’s not genuinely good.

Additionally, Tina Fey observes that after a certain age, women are labeled as “crazy” in the comedy world.  “I’ve known older men in comedy who can barely feed and clean themselves, and they still work.  The women, though, they’re all ‘crazy.’”  (Fey 246)  Fey jokes that women in show business are labeled as such because they keep talking even after the men don’t find them sexually enticing anymore.  Women are constantly being sexually judged in this arena.  To fix this, Fey suggests that more women should become the producers or bosses and hire diverse women of various ages.

Fey’s concepts are very liberating considering that women have been socially taught not to engage in verbal roughhousing (Greenbaum 35).  With this in mind, female stand-up comedians have to work harder to establish their authority on stage.  Women are expected to display qualities of weakness, passivity and submissiveness toward men, even in their speech (Greenbaum 36).  Paul McGhee who studies the psyche of humor notes that in order for a woman to become a joke teller, she must disrupt the cultural expectations that females are not supposed to dominate a mixed-sex social interaction (Greenbaum 36).  To develop a voice or authority takes time because there needs to be the achievement of confidence.

The four articles address how society over time have perceived knowledge and composition.  Some, such as Dave’s Educational Blog, focus on rhetoric in the educational classroom setting.  It mentions how it is difficult to pinpoint the definition of knowledge through an educational or societal standpoint.  He goes on to say that the current educational model is too static as well as knowledge creators are not typically viewed as valid experts.   So since there is no universal agreement on how everyone across the world views knowledge, it is safe to say that it is subjective to culture and historical forces.

Within the article, Re-Composing Space: Composition’s Rhetorical Geography, there is a further examination of composition throughout history.  For example, the limitations and implications for composition, especially when we consider the birth of it, and the influences of time and space.  Space, is shaped by history.  When we focus on the cultural/historical influences on knowledge, we can also take into account women, salves, and non-citizens.  For myself, this was an interesting concept since knowledge was kept from these people.  But as Sibley notes, “the production of knowledge involves both the exclusion of knowledge which is deemed dangerous..”  Not to get all political, but it reminds me of how the government can keep knowledge from its citizens.  Does it affect our intellect?

Teaching the Histories of Rhetoric as a Social Praxis also touches upon women as a subject matter of knowledge.  The line that made me predominantly happy was, “Feminism is promising to have a particularly far-reaching impact on historical research in rhetoric and composition.”  Last night, I watched Emma Watson’s eloquent speech given at the United Nations conference (maybe that was the reason this paper was held off).  Hopefully when her notion for the launch of HeForShe is in full effect, maybe we will see a shift in composition as well.  In addition, Miller examines how we teach history of rhetoric.  One way to look at it is to teach it not as a sequence of names and dates, but as traditions developing over time in response to “changing material circumstances, cultures, and ideologies (Miller).

Lastly, Baca’s Rethinking Composition, Five Hundred Years Later focuses on the birth of composition from a colonial standpoint.  He states the problem of Western colonial expansion which clashes with many multiple writing systems (in this case: early Mexico, Asia, and the Arab world).  He points out that globalization as a center-periphery political economy is not a new idea at all.  He suggests that composition experts need to imagine outside their “global unconscious” in order to develop their trans-hemispheric identity.

Williams’ article, “Speak for Yourself? Power and Hybridity in the Cross-Cultural Classroom” addresses the difficulties a professor faces when trying to teach his students of varying cultures his Western style of rhetoric.  At first excited by the idea of finding an approach to the many international students, it was actually troublesome for them to write a narrative piece or an authoritative one.  Such issues that professor Williams experiences with his class were: understanding issues of power, discourse, identity, and the role of writing in the postcolonial world.

As Williams soon finds out, culture stands in the way of assimilating to the writing class for his students.  Students can adopt conventions, but they face problems because of their underlying cultural assumptions are at odds with such conventions.  Teaching authoritative text has limitations since some cultures have different ideas about who owns ideas, the relationship between writer and authority, what counts as authoritative evidence, the creation of knowledge, and how ideas should be explained to others.  For instance, some cultures go by memorization and where one stands in the hierarchy system.  For these cultures, memorization is even in their definition of literacy.  Other cultures, like Asian and African, see the whole group is more important than the individual (a Western concept).  This becomes problematic when trying to create a persuasive piece or what  statement is in fact authoritative.  Williams, through his own learning experience of this particular situation, learns never to assume especially when it comes to citing properly.  Even after Williams explains to his class how to go about it, the students are still not giving credit to the sources.

Amazingly enough, it’s not as if they are disregarding Williams’s teachings, but this all goes back to the power of imperialism.  Teaching terms such as originality and analysis in a Western environment does much harm to these cultures who assume the power of the dominant culture.  Because power is assumed by the West, not non-Western cultures.  Thus, non-Western ideas are normally seen through the outlook of the Westerner, the discourse of imperialism.  “The colonizer will always seek to have authority recognized by the colonized” (Bhabha).

Ultimately, Williams tries to show one his students another view so it could work better for the intended audience, but it backfires.  The major problem is when another culture tries to resemble another, it is close, but it seems to come off as a mockery when imitating authority.   As Bhabha states, writing is not about revisions, hybrid discourse is a “process of negotiation”.  It is the role of the teacher to uncover the power and reorganize it.

So, what do you think of the challenges Williams faced in his classroom?  How would you approach such a matter on cross-culture in a setting such as this?  Is it possible to make other cultures understand one (especially rhetoric) that is not their own?  Would you have done a different method than Williams?

Connor’s article, “New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric”, argues whether or not the way we form or structure our ideas onto paper is due to our language or our culture.  This article examines different cultures globally who are learners of English.  Being a tutor of those who are English Language Learners (ELLs), I teach how they are supposed to structure their essays and then I teach English linguistics.  Seeing the way my students (who are predominantly Korean) form their thoughts, I notice the lack of articles or overuse (for one example) because in their L1, articles don’t exist.  Most of my learners make this mistake, but is it due to the fact that they are transferring the way they write in their L1 to their L2?  Most definitely.  But, what about their culture? Could it be the way that they write has much to do with their cultural background?  Connor along with many other researchers study other ELLs of varying cultures to see if their way of structuring thoughts onto paper has much to do with the transfer of L1 to L2 (English) or it has to do with the way their culture addresses certain types of rhetoric.

For example, some cultures such as Asian ones come to their point at the end.  Unlike how Western societies are direct and address their thesis in the beginning, as I did in this very blog (perhaps).  Asian rhetoric seems to be a circular method opposed to a linear way of organizing thoughts.  Connor’s article suggests this occurs in business/professional writing.  In addition to the way Asian cultures bring up a topic, linguistically, there is no set way to use quotation formatting, unlike speakers of English.  Yet, this is small peanuts on the cultural side of the argument.  Examining the way native speakers of English report their claims of business, there seems to be a mutual understanding that both parties are very busy doing business-like things and so the message comes across very simple and direct because that’s western culture.  On the other hand, eastern (Asian) cultures have a delayed approach to their request and emphasize interpersonal relations within the message.  Thus, proving that different cultures have diverse considerations when relaying a memo.  When transferring from an L1 to L2, speakers of other languages will remain with the style they know best.  This has a downside that the speaker may come across a certain way to a certain culture.

Connor along with his Upton have observed Finnish scientists and concluded that their style is very similar to an Asian one: the point is held off until the end and meta-text hardly exists.  So, what does this mean?  Could styles be handed down to another culture?  Does this mean that a culture can have an influence on another?  Absolutely.  I don’t think that idea is absurd whatsoever.  Connor and Upton have found a stylistic change that has developed over a thirty year period.  Major differences were apparent, but no so much anymore.  Over the years, a homogenized style has emerged.  So, what do you think?  Will there be one set way to write when it comes to business writing?  Will a universal form soon exist?  It’s quite possible since many of us want our businesses to branch out globally.  Isn’t that the real dream?

Taking in everything Connor has mentioned, when it comes to whether it is culture or language transfer that mostly affects our ELLs, it might be both.  The way any individual or any language or culture forms their thoughts on paper has much to do with social discourse (see paper written by Gee), which relies on their identity and upbringing.  There are individuals that are bilingual, do they really depend on one language more than the other?  Perhaps.  But there is a complicated scenario behind the individual.  I don’t believe rhetoric or the way one writes (when we are considering ELLs) has to do with solely their culture or solely the way they transfer their L1 to their L2; it could be both.

What are your thoughts on the way ELLs form their thoughts in writing?  Is it based on their surroundings and the social considerations they learn in their L1?  Or linguistically, do they transfer word for word from their native tongue?  Do you agree that it could be both?  Will we soon see a business world where there is a universal style in our rhetoric?