So, I was busy getting my research together - I forgot to blog! Bad Lancia.

For my track back project, I'm taking on terministic screens, from Burke to Bacon, with a sprinkling of Aristotle. If symbols inform language, then how we interpret those symbols informs how we shape our worlds. I want to explore pentadic analysis and metaphor analysis, since both examine viewpoints and context. I want to tie in a look at word choice, with Erasmus and "copia," since words can become metaphors, and the choice of words either make sense, confuse, or repel the intended recipient(s). Bacon is just as important as Burke in my project since the Humanist movement moved away from simply pandering to the elite, and wanted to shape a better, more involved man of the world - a symbol of returning to civic duty and responsibility akin to ancient Greece and Rome. Since Aristotle had little use for metaphor, I want to see if, after retracing the steps, he may have agreed with the basic premise, if not the purpose, of understanding metaphors - and therefore understanding the audience.

Pedagogy Paradigm Shift?

If language is ever shifting, and if we have more recently seen a massive shift in communication practices both in terms of presentation tools and global connections, how should rhetoric shift in terms of its instruction?


First, rhetoric is no longer confined to words. Music and pictures can shape our impressions of events; listen to "Dream of Abraham" by Daniel Bukvich or this picture taken by Steve McCurry. To dismiss the ways the world communicates to each other, especially across language barriers, does a disservice to the children who were born in the Internet Age. The song I mentioned brings to life the world of Abraham Zapruder, the man who filmed the JFK assassination decades ago. A picture, spanning 15 years, lays bare the soul of a war-torn and war-weary Afghanistan. Spoken or written word isn't needed there.

Second, a classroom isn't just desks and four walls anymore. Teleconferencing brings two (or more) cultures together in a space in time. A student in Texas can debate global issues with a student in Australia or Argentina - or both! Globalization has literally changed the metaphorical landscape of traditional classroom instruction. Cultures are mingling every day; so must the rhetorical genres.

Lastly, instructors should be encouraged to bring in these rhetorical modes into the basic composition courses. The same principles when writing a paper full of Aristotle's Five Canons, Bacon's psychology of moving the will, and Toulmin's logic can be applied to blogs and vlogs. Why not have students publish in the ways the world chooses (to some extent) to receive information or search for new views on the new topics? 

Draft in the works - Women in Direct Combat Dialectic

I started with the PowerPoint presentation lead-in because, frankly, nobody escapes PowerPoint, especially not in the military.

=======================================================================

Three people sit down in an empty conference room, waiting for a PowerPoint presentation: a general officer, a sergeant, and a young woman who isn’t wearing a uniform. As they wait, they strike up a conversation.

General: So, young woman, what brings you here?

Woman: I’m here for the briefing on how women will serve in direct combat positions in the military.

Sergeant: (scoffing)

Woman: What’s that? Aren’t you for the idea?

Sergeant: I’m wondering why women want to stare down the barrel of a gun. War is no place to test a political agenda.

General: Sergeant, women have been in battle for a long time, and at the very least serving as operatives and spies. And we have moved into a different time. Warfare isn’t the same anymore.

Sergeant: With all due respect, General, flying a drone, loading a C-130 in a combat zone, or servicing a tank back at base isn’t the same thing as pointing your M16 at someone charging your foxhole.

Woman: Are you saying women can’t handle direct combat?

Sergeant: I’m saying there are hardly any conclusive studies, or examples. Sure, women go out on convoys, work with the locals, and guard prisoners. I know that some men can’t handle it, and PTSD is no joke. But when it’s butts to nuts with the enemy overflowing your base, how am I supposed to just throw women into the mix and hope it works?

General: Now, Sergeant, just because there are no “conclusive” studies, doesn’t make it impossible. An absence of proof doesn’t automatically prove your point. If you remember history, women weren’t deemed smart enough to vote, much less land fighters on carriers.

Woman: Exactly, General. If I can put on the gear, shoot straight, and keep up with my unit, what’s the harm?

Sergeant: The harm is opening up the entire spectrum of direct combat positions without some type of insurance that the women who end up in my platoon can cut it – hell, that they even want to be there. If everybody in my platoon can hump for miles with ninety pounds on their backs, shoot or engage in close quarters, and sleep in a hole under a bush, then I’ve got no problem. But since I can’t pick and choose, I want something in place with a decent guarantee I won’t end up with the product of a social experiment.

Woman: What do you mean?

Sergeant: Whatever the General and the other policy makers do, I have no control. All I do is implement their plans. Since I’m low man on the totem pole for this decision, the very least they can do is make sure they think of me. I’m simply being honest. Hell, I don’t want a GUY who can’t carry his own weight. It’s about life or death. I choose life, whenever possible.

General: We aren’t asking you to die to prove a point, Sergeant. But we can’t ignore the fact we’ve kept women from the highest levels of military command, and from combat positions that they’re capable of. Even now, women are moving into some of the highest command positions in the services, and some of the toughest, such as serving on submarines. And women are asking for the chance to fight along with their brothers in arms.

Woman:  Sergeant, I haven’t been given the opportunity to prove myself to veterans like you. The services don’t give me the same opportunities to prepare myself, physically or mentally, through special schools and training, like they do for men. You don’t know what I’m capable of because I’m not given the same chances. Even now, when I do prove myself, I’m not assigned to battle because commanders think I “can’t handle it,” or I’ll “get pregnant to avoid it.”

Sergeant: Some women may, but I don’t personally think that’s the norm. And it’s been my experience that a few women want the shot, but not the majority. If that’s the case, then the biggest question, and I don’t think I’m alone here, is whether or not the generals are going to change the standards to make what they think is a more level playing field for women.

General:  I understand, but we aren’t going to allow services to rewrite their standards unbearably high so women can’t make it, either. However, some things will need to be taken into account. Right now, in honesty, we aren’t prepared logistically. The Navy, in particular, has issues finding separate spaces on ships and submarines for the enlisted women on existing platforms. Even though high command positions are open, there aren’t enough women of rank and experience to fill them. What looks like exclusion to some is merely a lack of resources.

Woman: But what about the Air Force, Marine Corps and the Army?

General: They’ve already started testing women in their respective services’ infantry and combat training courses. Many are making the grade, while men fail out. The Air Force has a mission distinct from direct ground combat, but women have already been flying F-15 and F-16 fighters and A-10 close air support planes. They are getting assignments on AC-130 planes and PAVE HAWK helicopters supporting combat rescue missions.

Sergeant: Outstanding! When do I get these combat women in my unit?

General: Well, to bring up your previous point about a lack of conclusive information, we are only using their success in combat schools for case studies right now. And before you protest, remember, you wanted proof they could handle the jobs. We’re building that proof for you.

Sergeant: Even more outstanding. So, let’s take this to another level. This is a matter of equality, right? I’ll front that women can hack it, proof is there, and now they get assigned to my platoon. Here’s the next question: are they gonna be drafted like the rest of us? In case of World War Three, will they get the call-up along with all the guys? Inquiring minds for the case of equality, and all that.

Woman: I don’t see why not. I know a lot of women who would answer that call without any hesitation.

Sergeant: That’s not what I asked. Would women be included in the draft, without any exemption that isn’t already in place?

General: That hasn’t been discussed in any large capacity…

Sergeant: Then explain this “gender-neutral” thing. If they’re supposed to be capable of direct combat, and women are asking for it, then they are just as capable of getting drafted into those direct combat positions. In the movie “Starship Troopers,” women joined up AND got drafted to fight the bugs without any sideways glances. They lived or they died. A true gender-neutral fighting force. Why should this be different in real life, when a world war is raging?

Woman:  Using a movie loosely based on a science fiction book written during the Cold War isn’t exactly proof, but I see your point. I know women see value in serving their nation as an honor and the duty of a responsible citizen, and want to show they can do it holding a .50-cal machine gun next to their buddies. I’m here for the opportunity to do that, but I know I can’t speak for every woman.

Sergeant: My bottom line is, as long as the right standards are met, training is taken and passed, and women don’t expect anything special, I’m game. To me, that’s fair for everyone. Women can find out if they cut it along the guys they’ll fight with, and men will get used to the idea that women can kick their asses on the rifle ranges. (After a moment) You have to know you won’t convince everyone this is a good idea, General.

General: To dismiss the fact women have been fighting beside men throughout history is to ignore the present, and future. Right now, women jihadists will eagerly strap bombs to themselves to blow up a building. Israeli and Peshmerga Kurd women are on the front lines of battle, guns in hand, to protect the very existences of their peoples. This is fact. There is no reason to keep them out of harm’s way based on the beliefs of a generation ago. If we set the standards appropriately, the programs will weed out those who can’t make it, and the studies will help us find the balance.

Renaissance Rhetoric - Looking at audience

As we moved into the Renaissance period of rhetoric, I definitely saw the shift from sweeping one-sided speeches into consideration for the audience, or audiences. I admit, I chuckled a little reading Erasmus' "Copia" (especially the section on "Indecent Words") because he went into such great detail. But I also had to admit that his methods have a rhyme and reason. Each word choice corresponds to the audience, written or spoken. When he goes into the methods, some of them may seem inane or self-explanatory, but how many of us read, or hear, rhetoric that makes us want to put a fork in our eyes? The same words and word usage repeated in the same text, or large, grandiose phrases when short and sweet would suffice. I paid particular attention to Method 9, "amplification." Broken down into two types, augmentation/comparison and inference, these are methods I've heard used in every-day rhetoric and considered exaggeration for effect. But after reading, and re-reading, about these devices, they have become more than mere ways to expand on the topic at hand. For instance, as I listen to state and local election campaign ads on the radio, Candidate A may state that Candidate B voted against a tax that would increase funds for education, therefore inferring that Candidate B is against education. I would argue that this type of truth-stretching is why Toulmin came up with his system of logic - the warrant must connect the data. Or, rather, the inference (claim?) must have a substantive argument (warrant) that backs up the political ad (data). I'm not suggesting this is the primary reason, but I believe if someone subjected political ads to Toulmin's logic, there would be some serious rhetorical failures.

What I also noticed from the lengthy introduction into the Renaissance rhetoric is how humanism encouraged rhetors to be more concerned with the effect of their speeches and texts. A little like the ancient scholars they studied (Cicero seemed to be a favorite), it wasn't enough to be an excellent rhetor; now a man needed to use words to be a responsible, moral citizen. I think humanism stressed this more than the ancients, but the Renaissance saw more than just nobles or elected officials getting involved in public affairs. Even women are encouraged and invited to study and learn, BUT only as long as their pursuits remained inactive, or merely a hobby, until marriage or orders. Baby steps, I guess.

My dialectic project

In order to understand the rhetoric about women in direct combat, I want to address the verbiage used to define what "direct combat" is, how "risk" is applied to the occupational specialties within the military branches, and whether or not these are adequately applied in a neutral manner.

As I developed my course discussion document, I realized that those who make the cases for and against women in direct combat take a political stand or a "boots on the ground" stand. Within even those conversations, there are overt and covert definitions applied by commanders down to squad leaders as they attempt to determine what, or where, the line is drawn. Terms like "collocated," "unit-level," "readiness," and "mission" may create pigeon holes or loopholes, depending on the level at which the dialogues are taking place.

Through dissection of the language, the ethical and societal implications should be apparent. However, I want to keep the main focus on how the rhetorical aspects of full integration hinder or help in placing women in what the military (and society?) consider male combat roles.

Old School! Ars Dictaminis

To Professor Richard Rice, sublime in mastery of Aristotelian argot and Dragganian dialectic, from Lancia Stewart in her ardent and faithful scholarship, voicing willing obedience and professing earnest friendship.

This humble student wishes glad tidings upon your endeavors and those of kith and kin, with sincere aspirations of future collaboration. As I proceed upward in avid fellowship of esteemed learning, I entreat your tenacity of wit and steadfast dedication to secure conscience and veracity in rhetorical thought, word, and deed. To these ends, I importune upon your knowledge and generosity to guide my modest ventures. Your mindful tutelage shall underpin my examinations of nebulous parlance in martial colloquy and quest to unravel the Gordian Knot of statecraft seductions. The fruit of these blessings I shall bestow to your credit and virtue, and therefore grant supplication to academia in your honorable service.

Always Thy Servant and Ever Respectfully, Lancia Stewart

Hello, Ashoka students!

1. "What do you think of India?"

My first response is the richness of color. The clothing, the spices, the flora and fauna, the environment, even the skin tones... so much color. Perhaps that's a stereotype, but it's my first response to the cultural idea of India. Colors are contextual, expressive, and activate the other senses.

2. "What does it feel like to be an American?"

I do feel proud to be an American, but not necessarily in an "us vs them" manner. I served for 23 years in the military, so I encountered Americans from widely differing backgrounds and viewpoints. Perhaps I sound simplistic when I say that America, for me, is sitting with my coworkers at 3:00am discussing politics, philosophy, books, world events, TV shows, or whatever comes to mind. It's a binding that crosses barriers because we were all in the same situation together. However, it exists outside the military; I found circles of friends when I was in my bachelor's program. I guess "American" is reaching out to find common ground wherever you are, though I'm saddened that some prefer to keep America within strict boundaries - physical or metaphysical.

3. Is the idea of home related to my identity?

That's a tough one. Now, I'm a native Texan, and we are generally known for our great pride in our state. Do I identify as a Texan? Yes. Does it mean that "home" is wherever I find other Texans? Sometimes, but the same can be said for others who are seeking a community of similar interests when they are in foreign places. That being said, I actually identify home with my personal nickname - given to me when I was three weeks old. (Don't ask, I'm not telling!) I know I'm "home" when I hear this nickname because it's mine alone, and those who use it are family and friends very close to me.

4. (Paraphrase) Is home the place where we can be engulfed by chaos and not have it affect us?

I hope I caught this question correctly. I think chaos, at home, is a double-edged sword. We are surrounded by things and people we know, which should help us deal with craziness all around us. We can let down our guards and be ourselves because home is (should be?) the place that accepts the good and the bad about us. (This reminds of the song "In The Garage" by Weezer.) However, it never stays within the walls, does it? Or, if we try to keep it there by bottling it up when we walk outside, it eventually escapes. And perhaps it should - are we really true to ourselves if we mask that chaotic side of our lives from others?

5. What would I define as homelessness?

Homelessness is a sense that you have no base, no foundation, nowhere that you can start from and move. Perhaps it sounds trite to use this - almost like a stock answer. But there are those who are homeless, physically, who are happy to be this way, or find solace in knowing they are among those who understand them (see question 4). But true homelessness isn't about whether or not you have walls and a bed; it's about whether or not you have any connections at all.

6. What is language within the idea of home?

Aside from actual language spoken (dialect, ethnicity, etc.) language informs your view of the world. I can only answer this through a personal anecdote. In my home, I never heard racial slurs, or I couldn't do something because I was a girl, or any sort of labeling due to someone's background. (If I did, it was so infrequent that I can't recall any of it.) So, I grew up without thinking "because he or she is (fill in the blank)." There are times when I had to educate myself on a topic because I never knew it was a topic, or my knowledge was severely limited. This education helped me explain things to my children so I can give the most unbiased answer to the questions they're bound to ask. So, language has its place in the home, but sometimes the lack of language is just as formative. Does that make sense?

7. Five things home means to me...

1. A center from which everything else is based.
2. The kitchen table, where my family congregates to talk. And this is commonplace throughout all the branches of my family tree.
3. Smells, sights, sounds of familiarity, even if it's only a temporary place (as I moved from assignment to assignment) or the place where I intend to plant my roots for as long as I can.
4. Where my books are - no matter where I go, I need books. Sometimes home started at the nearest bookstore.
5. Family - my actual family, or my military family, my "school" family, or my roller derby family...

Assignment #1 Redux

Hopefully, you will be able to access my doc via the link...

Memorandum of Rhetorical Philosophy

Peer Feedback: Assignment #1

All:

I had to revamp my entire assignment. Using the wonderful feedback provided in Monday's chat - and Prof. Rice gently easing me into what's expected - I used an "old friend" to start my project. This may seem odd - and that's the point. Instead of finding an artifact, I went with what I already knew and adapted it for looking forward into the future. You'll likely have to open it somewhere else (I'm not familiar enough with Blogger.com to add a file). Feedback is welcome - I'm sure I need it. I will be adding philosophical citations once I nail this down. This is definitely a work in progress for me.

Blog #5: What is home?

Three of the Ashoka students' blogs held some revelations for me, and I'll try to sum them up here.

First, Ishanika sees home as a base where someone can find his or her identity through introspection of the past, the present, and the future. I've seen home presented as a fixed space, usually metaphorically, for someone to link memory, emotion, and identity. However, it didn't occur to me that it's also a place to look at the future, almost like a new starting point for the old (new?) personality to begin. Gradually, I understood that every future becomes a "present" and "past," like steps in some direction. But wherever the steps may go, there will always be that first step, which is home.

Nainika brought up the TED talk by Zak Ebrahim, whose father was an extremist and part of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Home seems like one permanent thing, but home can always change. She infers that that something, or someone (in this case, parents) define "home" for children and it tends to stay that way until something happens to drastically re-define this space. I think this is germane - in a general sense, we see home as an unchanging place until something forces us to rethink the idea. It could be gradual, such as coming of age and leaving the nest, or in a split second after coming up against something completely opposite of what is "known."(These could be considered "aha" or "uh-oh" moments.)

I enjoyed Priyavrat's philosophical journey into the different elements which blend to develope one's sense of home. I queried which was the strongest pull for him - I personally believe we all have the one thing, such as memory, or emotion, and the others (physicality, location, art) complement the strongest tie in some way. For instance, a vinyl-covered couch (physicality) may remind someone of grandma's living room. I like how he wanted to investigate all these inputs and discover their interactions.

Blog #4: My philosophical theory on rhetoric

As a product of my last full-time occupation, my focus is on clarity. Merriam Webster defines clarity as:

: the quality of being easily understood

: the quality of being expressed, remembered, understood, etc., in a very exact way

While the definition appears to stress accuracy and a lack of any gray areas, I know this is not the case. What may be clear to the writer doesn't always translate when someone else reads, or listens, to the rhetoric. Memes, tropes, slang, and other devices are misunderstood across cultures, even within what may be a homogenized audience. My own personal slant on clarity is cutting through the rhetoric (written, spoken, visual, etc.) and finding the true meaning OR if there is any meaning at all. 

The first steps in clarity is understanding. Do I really understand the topic I'm about to discuss? Am I speaking through a filter based on my conception/preconception of the topic? Does my topic hold any interest with the audience? For example, if I speak on the visual rhetoric of a military uniform, my knowledge of the topic is different, as a retiree, than someone who did one enlistment, or someone who has never served. My filter may see the historical significance and inclusion into a specific area of society, but someone else may see regimentation, a projection of militaristic power, and sublimation of individuality. That lens - how I see it and how others see it - is vital.

My journey for clarity starts with the philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Locke, Vico, and Campbell (B+H). Understanding and using psychology to affect the audience was nothing new, but the Enlightenment rhetors began to dissect the motivations of the audience (though still from a Western viewpoint) as daily life changed as new science and technologies emerged. Today, with political battles played out in social media outlets and allegations of bias against mainstream news, clarity is lost amid six-second soundbites and weekly memes. And how do these snapshots translate to China, or Finland, or Nigeria? A Syrian refugee will have a different opinion of President Obama's speeches of US involvement worldwide than me, or someone in Utah, or someone in Australia. 

Perhaps that's the center of it all; there's really no "exact way" to communicate across cultural boundaries. However, if a rhetor - someone trying to get a point across - *doesn't* look for clarity through multiple lenses, or doesn't recognize his or her own lens and bias, then clarity is merely a buzz word. And that's why my personal philosophy of rhetoric is to first recognize my own lenses, then understand others' views, and finally try to bridge the communication gap.

Blog #3 - the rhetoric of 9/11

This particular blog topic gave me pause. I needed to ruminate a bit and, eventually, separate my military bias from the rhetorical question at hand.

"What rhetoric do you remember being employed during and in the aftermath of 9/11?"

Surely, it's easy to agree that Aristotelian method is heavily employed; the President stood before Congress, and the entire United States, asking for a declaration of war. Pathos was the heaviest lifter in all the speeches, which is no surprise - Americans were reeling with shock and emotion afterward. However, after reading the introduction in B+H, I now believe the rhetoric also took on the characteristics of the Medieval period. To quote the book: "They saw rhetoric as part of the hated Greco-Roman culture, imbued with the hopeless moral corruption of the pagan world. Moreover, rhetorical invention generates probable knowledge through the commonplaces and the enthymeme, but Christian knowledge is absolute" (B+H 8). Our beloved nation built on Christian values must now step up and defeat the Islamic terrorists who hate everything we believe, and we will be victorious. 

Before the President spoke to the Nation, the military knew we were going to war. To many of my "generation" (with time of service just beginning near the end of the Cold War and forward), the events of 9/11 were a culmination of perceived weaknesses in our foreign policy - starting with the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, then the bombing of the USS Cole. (Some of my peers remember Beirut and the La Belle disco in Berlin.) We didn't see this so much as a war against Islamic terrorists as much as a war against terrorism in general - this was the last straw in a long line of ineffective policies and now, we could finally do something about it. If another terrorist organization had perpetrated these actions, the result would have been the same.

The latter makes a more logical enthymeme. The emergence of ISIS(ISIL) and the videos of beheadings, reinforces the premise that belligerent Islamic militants are still dangerous and because of this, despite the toll on the military and the questionable strategies and objectives, the US is still the righteous bearer of the standard of peace.

A little help from the class, please...

Dr. Rice and I are emailing back and forth over my presentation topic. I'm most comfortable (knowledgeable) discussing military rhetoric, but I can't quite narrow down which particular topic. So, at Dr. Rice's advice, I'm posting here to get feedback from my classmates. The one specific we agreed on is the difference between "civilian" and "military" rhetoric on topics of interest, and I intend to take a "boots on the ground" approach to the miltiary side - as opposed to what the service Chiefs of Staff say.

1. Snowden/Manning - are they heroes or traitors, or a little of both?
2. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl - the core value of "never leave someone behind, "he walked away willingly," and the role PTSD may have played in this situation
3. Women in direct line of fire

I'm looking at these current topics, though each has a historical background as well. Participate in your representative democracy and vote!

Blog #2: Non-western rhetoric

What are the most important characteristics of rhetoric, and what have you learned about non-western rhetoric which is new to you? 

I encountered some of Confucianism in philosophy (albeit not the rhetoric theory and practices from Borchers). After a course in Native American literature, I experienced much the rhetoric through fiction and non-fiction authors. Vine Deloria Jr. summed up Borchers with a passage from "Custer Died For Your Sins": "What we need is a cultural leave-us-alone agreement, in spirit and in fact." (p. 27) I had no epistemic knowledge of Afrocentric rhetorical theory; however, Dr. Molefi Asante's explanation made a lot of sense to me, after what little I'd hear  via speeches, movies, or music.

Within or outside a culture, rhetoric needs a common thread. Standing back from the detailed explanations in Borchers, I believe the common thread is understanding first, within the culture, perhaps to the exclusivity of others. For instance, Chinese cultural rhetoric doesn't need to be understood by the world - at least, not at first. What matters most is the rhetor using culturally understood (accepted?) communication. All three non-western traditions speak to galvanizing the people to a common purpose, exclusive of anyone else. The power behind each type of rhetoric relies on what works within the culture, rather than what's generally accepted.

Afrocentricity was my newest rhetorical discovery. Not in and of itself, but the theory and principles. I'm not a big fan of hip-hop or rap, but older gospel music is very reflective of this theory. Admitting a little guilty pleasure, I watch the movie "Sparkle" over and over again, specifically for two specific musical scenes: first, when Whitney Houston sings "His Eye Is On The Sparrow," and second, when Jordin Sparks sings "One Wing." After reading the chapter, both exemplify the components of Afrocentric rhetoric. (I recommend watching the movie, as opposed to hearing the songs via soundtrack or YouTube, to experience the powerful effect.) After reading this chapter, the elements make a lot of sense, and I can see how the interaction of the components complete the communication between "speaker" and "audience." The written word doesn't have the same punch, or rhythm, as either speech or music does, in this genre.

Blog #1 - How do I use principles of rhetoric, today?

In what ways do you use principles of rhetoric in your teaching, research, service, and/or grant writing today? Where might some of those principles come from, historically?

            I had to think back and recall my experiences in the military to answer this blog question. Before I learned about the rhetorical triangle, my experience with rhetoric centered on the principles of public speaking, primarily knowing the audience. Much centered on either a military or government audience; what I’d say to the Airmen I supervised differed from the reports I wrote to global analysts or the memorandums I wrote to and for my own leadership. Communication could be as short as “K” (for “okay”) when I had to make decisions in real-time operations or lengthy if I needed to explain a complex computer system or new management decision. Throughout my baccalaureate experience, I maintained this style (perhaps, “attitude”?) of communication; I chafed at writing papers in which I “elongated” sentences to fit word count or page count, if I finished what I had to say. With thanks to professors who patiently hammered away at my reticence, my rhetorical style slowly evolved into a much wider audience (in this case, everybody else) and the ability to tailor accordingly.

Now that I’ve learned more about rhetoric in theory and practice, my styles came from Aristotelian principles (even when I didn’t know it). My audiences correlated to his: peers, students (young Airmen), and those who made “the big decisions.” Combining logos, pathos, and ethos, knowing my target audience, and building the perception that I could be trusted were instrumental to my success as a leader. Audience reception was key to making regulations and changes to process actually work. These principles are indispensable for any successful leader; the average person watching a politician or a general speak can attest to either buy-in and support or repugnance and dismissal.