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.
Great reflection on your prior experiences and relating them to rhetorical principles, Lancia! You mention that your success as a leader is attributed to these principles and "the perception that I could be trusted." I am wondering if the "perception" is actually the "reality" of being trusted? What are the characteristics that you developed to make them trust you?
ReplyDeleteAlso, when you were reflecting on your communication in different situations, do you think your audience understood your shorthand style? Were there established conventions for communicating in shorthand? I know when I grade papers I try to develop a shorthand for my comments on student papers. I try to give them the key so they know what to expect. Of course, it's not perfect and I still get questions - what does this chicken scratch mean? :D
Simply, I tried to live my words. I volunteered for things, emptied trash cans (if they needed it), etc. Perhaps rhetoric - the art of persuasion - gets its power from what the people see you do, rather than just what you say.
DeleteThe shorthand wasn't something I personally established; it was a way of communicating a need or a process in a very short period of time (think minutes or even seconds). And within my workspace, everybody knew, or was trained to know, the shorthand within that space.
I enjoyed your post, Lancia. Nice application of rhetorical triangle with your military experience. The triangle is often referred to as the communication triangle, instead, including speaker, speech, listener. Good inclusion of core concepts of rhetoric, such as the appeals and audience. In my mind, the military uses rhetoric, oftentimes, as a way to change the audience to be a specific kind of audience. That is, we often compose ideas not with the idea that the audience will drastically change, inherently. Their viewpoints my change, but not necessarily their way of receiving information or their mindset. The military trains its participants to take orders, for instance, and trust authority implicitly. Through rhetoric, as well as through physical work, that mindset is trained. Am I right, or is this a naive assumption?
ReplyDeleteYes, the classic distinction between orality and literacy is that orality is brief (brevitas) and writing is copious--with each having its own distinct shorthand (longhand, too). This relationship is interesting, for it does create tensions between speaking and writing as well as listening and reading for both the sender and user of communication.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Lancia! Very interesting stuff Dr Rice's and Elaine's posts really got me thinking in a different direction though. You have written about your ability to produce rhetoric and develop ethos, but I'm curious about how you were affected by and interpreted the military's rhetoric before enlisting, especially as a woman. What drew you to this particular branch? And, as Elaine asks, was there a moment when perhaps you were seen as someone worthy of respect? Was your ethos challenged by the airmen in what is generally a male-dominated position that you held?
ReplyDeleteYou know, I never felt the rhetoric aimed specifically at men (and not women). Instances of that bias were more localized within work areas; "women are not emotionally stable enough to (insert job here)." My ethos was challenged not because I was a woman, but because the airmen wanted to know if I would talk or walk, if I can shorten the expression. Among the very junior ranks, actions speak far louder than words.
DeleteThat's my impression, anyway.
Interesting. It seems like such a male dominated environment. I'm surprised that you didn't feel you were tested in some way before you were deemed to be credible and able to engage in the rhetoric. Maybe this shows growth in terms of gender relations in the military. :)
DeleteI am so glad that we can relate with having a military perspective. I had the same problem as you in regards to style. It seems the AF teaches a specific technique to writing and the use of terms. My professors told me that I needed to write more like I talked, because I kept using terms that seemed almost too formal.
ReplyDeleteNice exchange here. Of course, rhetoric doesn't only include someone standing on a stage preaching. Think about advertising as rhetoric, as well. Advertising, in particular, is very much aimed at specific genders. Interestingly, too, as DavidR suggests above, when orality isn't brief, there are pneumonic devices pr patterns peppered throughout in order to help the speaker remember how best to deliver the speech. Some of the devices are cultural or based on specific audiences.
ReplyDelete