CMJR: Questions for Week 4

1) As I was reading Chapter 11, I was quite intrigued by Hauser defining a rhetorical act as “both an unmasking of the partial and negative aspects of our previous identifications and a creation of a new mask.” This definition suggests that a fluid motion to the act of rhetoric, describing it as almost an organic body or state where symbols occur constantly within it for the shedding of perceptions and creation of new, more accurate ones. It is a very fitting definition because it captures the formal guise that language may take in certain situations, but the question that I have is to what end? Teleologically, how do acts of rhetoric proceed and to what exact purpose? If there is a constant shedding and reconstruction of masks because of the intricacies of language, is there even an ultimate purpose to each rhetorical act, or is language always in constant flux with no end or goal?

2) In the sixth chapter of his book, Verderber mentions that important steps for delivering a speech is for the speaker to be fully-prepared, and to this statement I have no contention, at least for the validity of the statement. However, I do believe that Verderber is underestimating the ability of unprepared rhetoric or when someone speaks “off the cuff.” In tiny doses, it can be very effective to the audience, especially if the statements are pointed and help to augment the speech. It also depends on the speech, because there are different types of information speeches in themselves. For example, I act as a leader for one of the retreats at SU, and I usually give a talk centered around the concept “Where do I come from?” It is certainly informational in that it chronicles my life’s experiences to help establish a certain atmosphere for the retreatants and to help them relate. But it is important that I do not give the speech word for word and with full preparation; the talk should be not be so technical because it forsakes the natural feel of the talk. It is not that I do not agree with Verderber’s claim that it is vital for the speaker to be fully prepared. Rather, his idea of “winging it” seems a little biased, doesn't it?

3) Lakoff and Johnson’s definition of metaphorical concepts as partially structures, but with the potential of being extended one way but not the other, completely takes into account the often obscure value that is placed on a certain metaphor. And it is with this important aspect of the metaphor in language, that I raise my question. According to Lakoff and Johnson, metaphor as language is a device where “poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish,” but when used poorly, the metaphor is often lost in translation. Depending on its worth, the metaphor may turn out to be a hindrance in the rhetoric itself, and in this case, the metaphor fails, having a purpose that turns out to be the opposite of what the authors claim. I think this points out a caveat in the use of language overall—a limitation that I often encounter when I do my philosophy homework—and instead of solving it, I believe that metaphor and its usage is simply worsening the problem. Is this a correct assumption?

CMJR 205: Questions for 1/12/09

1) Within the first chapter there was a discussion concerning the different categories of action and specifically in the included definition of symbolic action, the writer declared that “every attitude is also an incipient act, an act waiting to be done.” To this statement I have to raise contention because attitudes do not necessarily project what the future might turn out to be; in some ways attitudes merely act as responses, either intentional or not, to events in the present with no intention to change an outcome in the future. For example, if you happen to wake up late to class, you will automatically have a sour attitude. While this attitude might affect your disposition and actions for the rest of the day, it is not due to some unspoken objective, but was merely a response to waking up late. To call attitude an incipient act is to assume intent for the person with the attitude, which I believe is false. Is this reasonable?
2) The chapter concerning narratives and Homeric epics immediately caught my eye because of the writers’ claim that narratives occur in normative tradition and “act as bridges between cultural standards of conduct and belief and the material realities confronting members of that culture.” A key aspect in the Homeric epics was its supernatural theme involving Greek gods/goddesses who were heavily involved with the characters and their actions within the epic. Being a fan of fantasy (for that is my main draw to the Homeric epic), I would like to take this definition further and try to apply it to a fantasy narrative, not set within our world as we conceive it, involving characters that are completely inhuman and using themes that are not representative of cultural norms (such as cannibalism as a moral act). How then does this fantasy narrative adhere to the definition provided by Gerard Hauser if it itself is completely devoid of normative characteristics that could be applicable to current human lifestyles?
3) In the summary at the end of Chapter 2, Hauser says that language is inherently persuasive, and that it exists merely as a means for humans to draw themselves towards their own purposes. To assume that language is inherently persuasive is to posit that humans are inherently selfish; that our interactions with others is never for the benefit of them but for us to persuade other people to adopt our own opinions or turn them into pawns for our own gain. Perhaps, I might be taking his statement out of context, but at least connotation-wise, that is what I think of when he says it is inherently persuasive. Also, in doing so, he forgets the category of language that may fall under the term chitchat or small talk. During small talk neither of the parties are necessarily attempting to propagate their own particular views and to persuade the others to agree with them. Small talk is for the mere purpose of wasting an indeterminate amount of time, and often occurs between parties that do not know each other well. Is small talk/chitchat also considered inherently persuasive?