Scratching

Myers brings up some very interesting points in The Use of Plato in Charity Letters. I was particularly struck by the notion of giving as a sense of receiving. That is, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Though I have no and will most likely not have any money to donate for a very long time--this thought surrounding American altruism made me think about the notion of language and manipulation. 

Thinking about 'truth' as a capital T and noting that giving and the act of are linked with this type of truth, its interesting to note that even the most honest of organizations have to survive. This also brings up the argument of the ethics of manipulation within this context. Hopefully charities are doing well and thriving that are doing 'good', but to me its always seemed that the emotionally attaching aspect of language and meaning is highest associated with the giver. 

There is a strong sense of guilt created with this type of language and that guilt is very very powerful. Once guilt has been created through letters as mentioned by Myers, or phone solicitations and what have you--its reversal is its release. So the language it seems, is geared toward the release of this type of guilt toward the giver. 

Taking this one step further, the people who can obtain those feelings of good for the long-term charity investment are often those with wealth. This separates the two aspects of this kind of altruism even further to the person who can alleviate their own sense of 'guilt' to help others and the person who cannot. 

Where I disagree with Myers is in what form of emotion the rhetoric of these letters seeks to promote. I believe that these type of letters introduce a sense of guilt over a sense of pity. I believe this because some of our best actions are generated from guilt: apologizing and reconciliation, re-examination of the self, and help to others. It's not guilt with a capital "G" but a form of it. 

How this relates to a project I'm really not sure. I've been struggling recently in thinking about possible projects. I've been investigating thoughts of working with the rhetoric of developing assignments as discussed previously but have been having a hard time finding literature on it. More freaking out to come in 505 this evening...

Reading the introduction to Aristotle’s rhetoric helped to clear up a lot of lingering questions I had about the roots of rhetoric and its importance in teaching and learning. I keep thinking about the development of rhetoric in terms of its political connotations and the impact it has on educational movements, cultural values, and symbolic meaning. I often feel that a lot of what is lost in higher education is the sense of education for education’s sake. I ask students to be invested when they have been taught and rung through a system that because of external political forces has created divides of interest and genuine perceptions of learning. Granted, it could all be viewed as a learning process in and of itself but I personally tend to run on the side of honestly answering the question of, “Why give a toot?”

There is the external construction of rhetoric and education and the internal construction of rhetoric and personal investment and the focus always seems to be on delineating between the two perspectives. What I teach often focuses on the ‘why give a toot’ internal construction of knowledge but I’m also dealing with fighting the negative social constructions of teaching that our demographic brings in.

In the Prooemion it is stated, “…persuasion depends on three things: the truth and logical validity of what is being argued, the speaker’s success in conveying to the audience a perception that he or she can be trusted, and the emotions that a speaker is able to awaken in an audience to accept the views advanced and act in accordance with them (x).” What occurs from my experience in a classroom, is the perception and development of topic value. Rhetoric is only worth its value if the topic holds a certain amount of weight so that the student has the ability to invest in it. .

This is brought up in Chapter 1, pg. 35:

“Speech based on knowledge is teaching, but teaching is impossible [with some audiences]: rather, it is necessary for pisteis and speeches [as a whole] to be formed on the basis of common [beliefs] as we said in the Topics, about communication with a crowd.”

The topic here would be finding common understandings of knowledge in classrooms. This involves a lot of the thoughts I’ve had about assignment development and the importance of paying attention to the use of language. This would definitely also be a research topic to pursue further as a research topic.

In terms of thinking of persuasive language and pushing the issue of political weight in rhetoric, I’m also interested in dissecting presidential (and vice presidential speeches) in terms of rhetoric used. I think it would be a really interesting project to think about the development of rhetoric in political terms that recognize the development of speech surrounding political party affiliation.