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.
Why doesn't Chinese cultural rhetoric need to be understood by the world? Nice to see your ideas growing through your blog posts, Lancia.
ReplyDeleteHi Lancia,
ReplyDeleteI have to echo Dr. Rice's question. Why doesn't Chinese cultural rhetoric need to be understood by the world? I want to push back on that statement in two different ways. First, understanding diverse rhetorics allows us to better understand those around us. It's really the difference between empathy and sympathy. With a sympathetic understanding, we can think "I'm so sorry that I don't quite understand you. Maybe if you did X or Y?" But in that context, X and Y are probably well meant, but rooted in Western culture. However, when we are aware of the differences, we can empathize. We can understand and see the situation (in this case, the rhetoric) through the eyes (and rhetorical tools) of another culture. To me, that seems imperative.
Second, if you want to look at this through a rhetoric-giving consumeristic viewpoint, we cannot fully reach any given market without understanding it. Even if we don't have any dealings with China, we may very well have dealings with people of Chinese decent. Without understanding their rhetoric and how it differs from our own, we will never be able to fully reach them to sell a product, create a professional connection, or convince them that our governmental leaders are globally minded.
Okay. Third time trying to comment.
ReplyDeleteI phrased it poorly. I don't mean we shouldn't understand it. I meant we should look first at the effect within the culture, then how those outside engage, interpret, synthesize, and communicate with the culture. Does that make sense?