A first good point of Kennedy's piece is his connection of animals and rhetorical knowledge compared to Damasio's piece on monkeys and the troubles that come with their lack of emotion.
Kennedy says "Whether or not animals have a sense of self, many clearly can recognize other individuals of their own species and some animals can apparently recognize what individuals belong to what family groups" (Kennedy 7). This can verify my point that emotions play the role of being an individual. I think emotion equals personality, and each animal species/the human species has their own code of personality, although many branches exist in each. When you deprive or "cut away" an animals emotion they fail to recognize and be recognized by the members of their species. This is so effective for persuasion because humans, as a whole, connect with each other on an emotional level, and when you take that away we don't have the same main branch as each other so their is no way we can be persuaded.
I also thought his section on rhetoric comparing with communication could be useful to becoming a successful rhetor. Kennedy says "Rhetoric is apparently present in communication, though communication can be within the personality of one individual, as when one tries to "talk" the self into some action or belief about
which one has conflicting sentiments" (Kennedy 2). So do you all think he's saying that communication is effective, except it can be harmful by persuading ourselves? Or why you agree or disagree with what kennedy says about communication and rhetoric. I know he goes on to talk about different ways communication cannot be compared to rhetoric, but I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.
Hey Reed!
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed Kennedy's discussion of animals. He made connections between animal behavior and human communication that could easily be overlooked.
Plus, I learned a lot of cool stuff about animals! I thought the section on crows was pretty entertaining. I had no ideas that crows had "assembly calls." I think I might like to learn a bit more about that! Kennedy noted that the three topics that interest the crows most are territorial control, mating and feeding. Which doesn't sound too different from us, does it? Kennedy warns against the dangers of anthropomorphizing animals, but I can't help but throw caution to the wind and anthropomorphize the heck out of them! I love the idea of crows holding serious debates about the best spot to find worms, feather conditioning regiments, and which lady crow has the nicest tail feathers. Rhetoric is awesome.
Communication within oneself is a pretty curious type of rhetoric. I suppose it is similar to how many people talk out loud in order to work out their thoughts. The ideas are already contained within their heads: nobody is putting thoughts in their ears, but the act of formulating words and sentences helps to order the way we think and develop our thoughts and work through problems that just thinking about would not have solved.
ReplyDeleteThe Human brain is a hell of a thing.
What I thought Kennedy was trying to say when he mentioned individual communication was that communication and rhetoric do not have to be restricted to their basic definitions. Many people assume that communication has to be in the form of two people using language. But as Kennedy demonstrates, communication and rhetoric don’t have to involve someone else or even humans for that matter. I think this is how he leads into his discussion that rhetoric is prior to speech. There are many instances where rhetoric/energy occurs without language. Suzanna made two good examples of this in her post by describing newborns and dogs. Both of them have various levels of energy they animate without using human language.
ReplyDeleteResponding to what Reed asked,
ReplyDeleteI think Kennedy is trying to expand his reader's presumably narrow conception of rhetoric, and simultaneously complicate the readers understanding of the relationship between rhetoric and communication. I don't necessarily think internal-rhetoric is harmful (you might, after all, persuade yourself to do something noble, virtuous, altruistic etc). though, admittedly, people seemingly do more "rationalizing" and "justifying" of questionable deeds internally.
@Sean - I wouldn't say that you even necessarily have to be talking to yourself aloud in order to be "working out your thoughts" rhetorically. I think I do a lot of internal persuasion that's only expressed as an "inner monologue" (you know, the voices in my head) and never actually gets uttered. I definitely agree with you that the process of "formulating words and sentences" helps us to solve these problems, though some people think more in terms of images than words, and I'd be interested to see whether these internal images are as rhetorical as self-directed language. Perhaps they could be even more rhetorical, considering the strong emotional impact of images. Do we construct vivid images in our own minds as a means of self-persuasion?
Hey Reed, I thought Kennedy contradicted himself on the communication thing. First he said, "But rhetoric probably should not be identified with communication..." and then, "Rhetoric in teh most general sense may perhaps be identified with the energy inherent in communication..." It's like he wants to have it both ways...
ReplyDeleteKennedy's argument for "communication" with yourself is a bit odd until you realize that yes, you do in fact have to tell yourself certain things (if not out loud) to convince yourself it's a good idea. Ever do something stupid and then instantly think "god, what did I do that for?!?" Case in point. It's not necessarily something that can be described as communication however since you're only thinking it to yourself, so it becomes a form of self-rhetoric in that case.
ReplyDeleteCan the self-dialogue (whether internal or external) even be considered rhetoric? I guess it goes back to how you define rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI always consider the role of rhetoric to be advocacy. You advance a claim, and try to get an audience to believe that claim. But in the case of self-dialogue, the final goal seems to be discovery, not advocacy.
For example: if you have a problem in your life that you're looking to solve, you're typically not trying to convince yourself of a certain solution that you believe to be correct. You're usually reasoning with yourself in order to discover the best solution to the problem. So the self-dialogue is more of a discovery process than an act of advocacy.