Booth- So Good yet So Bad

Overall, Wayne Booth’s discussion of literary criticism and ethics is thoughtful and interesting; however, his use of the words “good” and “bad” are troublesome.  For the most part, Booth is just verbalizing what actually happens every time we hear or read an object of discourse—be it a silly vignette or formal oratory— a story will always evoke a response, just as a literary theory will provoke thought.  He asks his audience if the consequences (I assume he means the resulting emotion or idea) of listening to a story are “good or bad” (99).  In using the terms “good” and “bad,” though, Booth severely generalizes his point because the quality of a piece of rhetoric cannot be deemed so.  To define something as good or bad is far too objective.  Using his illustration of Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther and the resulting increase of suicide, Booth alludes that the work was “bad” because it possibly influenced people to kill themselves (100).  But, doesn’t that mean that the work was also extremely “good”?  If Goethe’s intention was to have people die, that is ethically wrong, but the fact that he succeeded proves Werther to be incredibly good too.  Therein lies the problem- what is good cannot really be deemed good on all levels, just as what is bad cannot be considered completely bad. 

A Horse Called Rhetoric

          The car is a powerful machine, full of energy and potential to accomplish great things.  However, like so many powerful things, a car needs a driver in order to reach its maximum potential.  In his article, The Order of Discourse, Foucault says that from the moment it is created, discourse is immediately “controlled, selected, organized, and redistributed,” by a set of rules dictated by society (1461).  The concept makes sense; words have power, but unless properly presented in the right environment, by the right person, in the right setting, words can lose their power.

          Without the reigns of Order, discourse is a wild beast.  Consider the impact of books like The Feminine Mystique or The Sun Also Rises.  These pieces of rhetoric had a significant impact on the thoughts and actions of people in their time.  However, would they have been as influential if they had been presented in the 1800’s, or even today?  Probably not.  Foucault mentions man’s “will to know,” or “will to truth,” and claims this craving is strengthened by “the way in which knowledge is put to work, valorized, distributed, and in a sense attributed, in a society” (1463).  Society’s rules were being re-shaped during the 1960’s and 1920’s; people were willing to question their lives and the standard of their moral compass. The words of Hemingway and Friedan were “put to work” and helped establish a paradigm shift in the world.  Discourse was tamed to free the minds of America.  

Hmm... Pondering the Function of Identification in Rhetoric

            Consider the primary, most basic goal you have when first introduced to a new classmate.  First, you ask their name.  Then, what year they will graduate.  Maybe now what city they are from.  The questions may stop there or continue to more subjective ones, like what music they like.  This standard introductory survey is purposed to find out where you stand in relation to the new individual.  According to Kenneth Burke this search is “to confront the implications of division,” or identification (1326).  Burke’s take on identification is logical and applicable in many rhetorical situations; rhetoric divides individuals while also uniting them.

            While attempting to pick apart Burke’s argument, I found myself genuinely confused, then pleasantly surprised.  Understanding of identification comes in Burke’s definition of rhetoric, where he says that rhetoric considers the ways some people are against each other or how these differences cause others to identify with each other (1326).  It makes sense; we see it all the time.  When a speaker is attempting to move her audience, let’s say it’s a group of mothers, she references her children.  This identifies her with other moms, they share the maternal bond.  However, it also divides her from the group of women without children.  Now she has joined herself to one group through their division from the other.  Burke calls this division the “ironic counterpart” of identification (1327).  In actuality, this theory is applicable even in your introduction to a new student.  You want to find the common ground you share, or the lack of it, so you can properly position yourself with them.  We practice this theory all the time.  It just takes a good pair of analytical glasses, and maybe some help from Kenneth Burke, to see it.  

Discourse or Situation: Which Comes First?

Kristen Timberlake

Anne-Marie Womack

ENGL 354.900

September 5, 2010

Discourse or Situation: Which Comes First?

            Find page two of my copy of “The Rhetorical Situation” by Lloyd Bitzer, and you will discover the margins full of indignant exclamation points and demanding question marks. The piece presents a solid argument for the importance of rhetorical situation but there is a fundamental loophole loitering in the background.  While Bitzer has a valid point in highlighting the role of rhetorical situation, it is flawed because just as situation can give birth to discourse, so discourse can also form situation. 

            I believe my problem stands mainly with Bitzer’s definition of rhetorical situation as the absolute means by which discourse is created (2).  After reading the article in its entirety, the argument seems logical and is well-founded.  However, Bitzer completely disregards the role discourse plays in the formation of situation.  Yes, Kennedy’s Inaugural Address was given because situation required it, but did it not generate a situation of patriotism for its audience?   Situation certainly demanded Churchill’s responses to the crises of World War II, but did they not also create a situation of pride and strength for his listeners?  Bitzer is right to say that situation “obliged” the fishermen’s conversation, yet he disregards the fact that such discourse has the power to redefine their situation (5). 

            Bitzer tells us that exigence is a basic criterion for rhetorical situation, but for all its importance, he does not address its pliability.  Bitzer defines exigence as “…an imperfection marked by urgency…something waiting to be done” (6).  Many things are waiting to happen, but are often left untouched until someone notices and speaks about them.  Be it a mother who recognizes the significance of having family dinners, or a politician scorning their rival, that family dinner or public debate would not come into being without some form of discourse.  The media often manipulates exigence to their advantage by applying it to facts or observations in order to create a situation of alarm or demand.  Bitzer’s failure to acknowledge this circular relationship between rhetorical situation and discourse is a major flaw in his theory and simply cannot be overlooked.