Sh*t my rhetorical essay says

The bumper sticker, I think, is a wonderful example of social rhetoric. I used this example specifically to tie-in the messages that Covino, Lynn and D’Angelo share with us in this weeks’ readings regarding the traditional and contemporary applications of rhetorical pedagogy. While I realize could have much to say in regards to my previous post, I’ll try to keep things simple (which is ironic considering the subject matter). I might be wrong to make these associations, but what if:

1) we see the bumper sticker as an allegory for traditional rhetorical pedagogy. To me, the bumper sticker is merely a simplified message whereas (to nod to Steven Lynn) “form” is “function.” The function is to relay a message—whether it be profound or something silly—through a medium (mode) which allows for no rebuttal, discussion, etc. It is, as I mention in my own essay, a “passive” mode of communication. That being said, I took the form of the bumper sticker as a way to perceive the traditional use of the 5 paragraph essay. While you can’t obviously say so much in a 2” x 6” block of space, I have to ask: what can you really say within the confines of a 5 paragraph essay?

2) To assume that a proper argument (one which would please the likes of Quintilian, for example) can be made in the form of a 5 paragraph essay is as ridiculous as assuming that you will be able to sway someone with flashy bumper sticker. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not really.

3) I mentioned earlier “form” and “function” of the bumper sticker. Its limited form limits its function. To assume that the aim of rhetoric is merely to convince your audience is, in fact, quite limiting. Indeed to give a student a particular task with a strict rubric with a particular goal in mind is—you guessed it—limiting.

I took from the readings a few things that have helped me understand the function (aim) of rhetoric, as well as its diverse forms (modes). To escape the limited scope of the traditional rhetorical pedagogy, I interpreted the function of rhetoric is to persuade someone to see that your point of view is valuable (or valid?). I’m not 100% convinced that a well-developed rhetorical assignment has one purpose only: to persuade. If we assume that this is so, then we are also saying that an audience need not think critically about the subject they are reading if the audiences’ job is to give their attention in exchange for conviction. I would like to give more power to the audience. If ancient rhetoricians tell us that a well-developed argument takes time to consider in its fullest potential, then wouldn’t an audience require the same or similar allowances? If a teacher maintains that a persuasive argument MUST convince, then we are teaching a paradox: writers do the thinking for their audiences. But in a classroom environment, who do we consider the “audience?” The student? The teacher? Probably both at times. Perhaps it is better to envision the function of rhetoric as a way to convince an audience to see in new ways.

I propose that Covino, Lynn & D’Angelo lead us to envision rhetoric as a process which enables a student to develop his or her ideas in various forms as part of a larger dynamic social context. I enjoy that Covino points out “the dynamism of rhetoric,” as it is precisely this kind of attitude that, well, gets us somewhere (nod to the bumper sticker, car, huh huh?). I was waiting for the word to be uttered: synecdoche. The parts equal the whole; the whole identifies with its parts. I used several modes—narrative, exposition, argumentation and persuasion—in my essay particularly because I wanted to show that the parts (various modes of rhetoric) can achieve a desired effect (the whole).

Finally, I’ll mention that I purposely tried to maintain that bumper stickers are neither good nor bad. In fact, they simply are. As I look over it now, I’m not sure if I properly do that; I wanted to suggest that is the responsibility of the viewer to perceive (and internalize) what he or she wants to when presented with (bumper sticker) rhetoric. And by that same vein, I wanted to further point out that the responsibility of a teacher is to present various modes (as tools) to his or her student so that they may be equipped to articulate a particular message—be it profound or even silly--as well as a way to understand the "global quality" of rhetoric. Let’s hope those “tools” are not restricted to the form of a 5 paragraph essay (production). Or a bumper sticker (consumption).