,!6

I

. , ,

* '

IP , 'I s.

4

11 t

_ 4r AM

pocomm RESUMEO

, Bp 150 662 CS. 501 995. ,

AUTHOR Benson,. Thomas W..'--'TITLE .0.- The Sense S of RhetpriC: A Topical System fb

Rhetori41 ,Cri'tics etics of Nonoratortcal FOrm..1.

t.

)

PUB DATE Dec 77MOTE 22p.; Pap r presented at the Annual Meeting of the

,

Speech Communication Asspciation-(63rd,9tecember 1-4,

....._...1977)

- . .

.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83*Hg-41.67 Plus Postage. ,

- DESCRIPTORS Higher Education; *Literary Analysis; *Literary (

Criticism; *Rhetoric; *Rhetorical Criticism; TextualCriticism I

*,

ABSTRACTTeachers of rhetorical criticism need not wait for

critics to-reach agreement on only one usage of "rhetoric" ap-a,thooretiCal construct; but can use thefikrions ways is conceivedas an educational resource.. This document 'describes nine kinds 'ofctitics, eacft of whose sense of rhetoric can 'be useful in suggeoStingto students ways toy unrkwel a text: intebtionalists, social critics,'critics such as Wayne fboth ("The Rhetoric of Fiction"); critics ofimitative rhetoric, formalists, genr,critics, implicit rhetoricaltheorists, ideaiists,'and eclectics. These nine senses form a topicalsy.step intended to give students the minimum amount of background incritical method to stimulate the maiimua appreciation of a text -itsfo'rm, contant, context, and coamunicative potential. Extensivefootnotes are-appended..(CC)

t,

0

t

ReprOductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *from the original document.

**************A*,***************11**************************************

a

U S DEPARTAENT OF NEALTNEDUCATION L WELFARENATIONAL INSTJTUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTL Y .AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OP ORGANIZATION ORIG1N,ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE4SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

a.

THE SENSES OF RHETORIC: A TOPICAL SYSTEM

FOR RHETORICAL CRITICS OF NONORATORIOAL FORMS

A gaper presented to the

Speech Commuqication Association

December, 1977

Washington: D.C.

PERMISSION TOBEEN

THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Thomas W. Benson A

TO HE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ANDUSERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM

' Thomas W. Benson

Department'of Speech Communicatiombp

The Pennsylvania State University'

227 Sparks Building iF

University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

1977 T. W. Bensbn

( .

FA,

f

a. cti

ROL

THE SENSES OF RHETORIC: A TOPICAL SYSTEM

FOR RHETORICAL CRITICS OF NONORATORICAL FORMS

.1

.recent years, dispissions of the relations between rhetorical

critic m and the arts have taken on the tone of declarations of faith --

or sometimes 6f declarations of bard I want to begin by disavowing

any intention to preach or to fight this morning, and to assume the.'111

perspective of a curious onlooker.

I will talk as 1 teacher of rhetorical criticism, trying to show

students how rhetoric can provide ways of understanding the working of \,

a variety. of texts: 'films, novels, autobiographies in fact, virtually

1.

IAA

any symbolic action. In my experience, a student confronted With a

411

text needs some guidance in knowing what quegtions,to ask about it, and

rhetoric provides a living system of thought (one that I find more4pro-

T

ductive than linguistics, structuralism, semiology, pOetics, or logic)

getting at the symbolic form and the communicative potential of a

text. But there are problems.

The major problem is in understanding that it is lagitimAte to Apply

rhetorical criticism to what may properly Ape considered pcietic texts.

second stems from the variety of often inconsistent ways in which peopI4

calling ihemselves.rhetorfial critics approach texts.'

RHETORIC VS. POETIC

-i-kmalt that it-is impbssible to reso ±ve the question pf the two

literatbres, poetic artd rhetorit, in a short paper, and there are other

,questions that I want to move on to. But I must, in passing, indicate1

. hOw I think the problem can best beapproached by rhetorical critics.

3

2

todeny a rhetorical critic accOS to a poetic textait is #sual to

employ a metaphor of substance, natural act, -or contract. For instance,*

it is argued that sot* texts-are essentially, that is,-substantially../-

poetic,: We all inoWtAht an object cannot be both one substance and

another, Ad we all knOW that two objects cannot'ocCupy the same space

at the same time. Hence, the argument goes, if an object is poetic

cannot Oa/rhetorical, and so rhptorical criticism would be out of plhce.a

But to 'take poetry and rhetoirit into substances is a purely metaphorical

act, and not a Proper basis for prohibitions that seem to carry the force

'of natural law.. Similarly, I believe it is mistaken i?4egad either

poetic or rhetoric as "natural acts," which are pure and separate in the

same-way that reflexes and instincts are understood to be: 'determined

as a matter of genetic programming. There, are poetic theories which

regard a poem as a natural effusion from the unconscious, and therefore,

,

410

perhaps, a pure form. But rhetorical theorists have almost always heldi I.

...

(as rave most poetic' theorists) that poems and. speeches are things made

by choice, rather than acts of nature. Finally, some who prohibit

4

rhetorical criticism of poetic forms argue that a poem is, ii-effect,

a contract with its nits implicit in its form: that a fOrm osed

.apoem demands that a critic with integrity treat it as a poem. I /must

admit that this argument strikes meas more forceful than the MetaphQrs of4

.

natural substance or natural act, but I think that it imposes a constraint

rather thana prohibition: the critic of a poem must keep in mind that

the work is a poem,.but he need not close his eyes Anything that will

he him understand the wokkinga of the text, and here -the proof must--.

emerge in the critidtsm itself. If rhetorical ci t cism can lead to the4'

1

.

p

I

.discovery of formAi processes, and effects that might otherwise go. A

runnoticed, then it has made its case. It is true that a clumsy rhetorical

critic can.trivialize a work of the imaginationfby treating it as.4 form

iscourse, and can diminii the experience of an image byofpublic

reducing it to a linguistic puzzle. 'rhetorical critic is liktly to be

atten ive to a diversity of forts and,methods, processes end experiences

text and a 'critic will seek variety where a theorist might try to.

°

ose unity. Wind where a philosopher or t,heorist will rightly try

co describe the differences between rhetoric and poetic, the critic

/ may, with Kenneth Burke, be rmuch more interested in bringing the full

resources ofogoetics and Rhetorica dooens(

to bear upon, the study of a

text that in trying to-draw a strict line of demarcation between2

Rhetoric and Poetics."' The theoris) and the critic'have things to say

Vb each other: one drawing towards logical consittency, the other facing

and celebrating the inconsistency of actual cases.

1I

THE SENSES OF RHETORICJ4 V

If.we give priority to understanding the philosophical distinc-

tions and relations between rhetoric and poetic, we'will never get on

'with thebusinesi of. examing.ng. texts. And so, I 2r4opOse brat we try to

understand how the rhetorical tradition provides ways of understanding

texts. I will describe my own experience.-

t.,I am currently teaching two courses, and part of a third, as the

-\

.rhetorical criticism of nonoratorical form. Ond is a seminar on "The

Rhetoric of Nettation," in which' we Iookifor.theory to Kenneth Burke,

,

3, .

Wayne Booth, and to Professor Corbett's anthlogy. For exampiies we

fread and dissect novels and dtebipgraphy: Henry James' Th e AmhassadorS,

. .

J

' N'

4

'0

4 , 4

1111E0 iGide's The,Gounterfeiters,-Thomas Mann's Felix Krull, Roth's Portnoy'"g

Complaint,Ellison's Man, Upton Sirkolar's The Jungle, and Thee

I* Autobiography of4Malcom X.

In another codrle, s on " ,RhetoriC of. Film and Televisien," we

, .,,

1.''

consider from a rilefo4caf)perspectNiveo Elie writings add.films:of Sergei-% .

, ,

4isenstein, a selection of German films from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligarie-.. .

to Triumph of the Will, and.a changing group of other films,such as Wiseman's

. .

High School, Respais ' Night and Fog, Renoir's Grand Illusionodard's

Weekend, the Why 'We Fight series, and a sample of television from The

Brady Bunch to Walter Cronkite.

In both of these courses, we devote mOst of our time to observation,

descripizfOn,' analysis, and interpretation of cases, rather than to con-,

sideration of theory per se. The first principle of rhetorical criticism

for us, is to make a close reading of the case at hand. e clog

.reading of a text,and, a full appreciation of the text as a rhatorilcal

enterprise, demands a perspective and a method! ,We conceive of rhetorical

criticism as providing away to make use of thebest Of formalist, con-.

textual, and phpnomenological approvhes, to ;et at the method6and,the

experience of a text. It enables di to of a given work:

1. What were the resources '(and constraints) availableto, 4

the author? '7

,2. What could the work have meant for its audience? .

3. What readinillwould an ideal.audience make of.the text?-,4 : How Can help an audience "gain acoess to the

-

klircommunicative potential of -a text?

The problem for my-students is to know what questions to ask about the

110

414

ti

-4

41.

text. We found that we needed a topical system to suggest questions

a reader might beringcto a text; the-sort-of thing Wilson and Arnold do5

for rhetorical invention'in Public speaking As a Liberal Art, and that

-1-k flassuggested.for-crirics.--of-At-dticiyarse-ttrCrttttristtref-Orat---6

, Suchwa topical system exists in theworks-of self- described

rhetorical critics of literature, film, Ad'Other media, but has nowhere

Rhetoric.

been brought together as a system. Part of the reason that it has not

been 12..rought.togethe'r is as)I-have already indicie4:the willingness of

critical method to wait courteously nn 4p. rhetoricallheory solved,

'finally, the question'of the boundaries of rheigkoric and poetic. But the

-4Vcourteous pause now. having lasted' two and a, half millennia, ire can perhaps

*be excused for going about our business of pursuing critical m hod even

in the absence of phil6sophical unity. And so let us look at critics who

claim to be doing rhetorical criticism. We find, at once that they aik,

using the word "rhetoric"-in different and sometimes conflicting ways.

Now, if I were looking for philosophical unity that would be a problem,

but I'm going to claim that for a teacher of rhetorical 'criticism thole

different usages.of "rhetoric" as a theoreticl construct are not a. ,

problem but a resour e, a ready-made toPical'system suggesting a variety

,,pf ways to approach a text. In what follows, I will describe,some of

the senses Of'uhetoric that I have found most useful in suggesting to

students how to unravel a,text. That they overlap logically, or some-

.

e.,times contradict eact,other,is not our immediate concern. WA wantto

'km rather. what does,this arit1 or group of critics mean by

'"rhetorical" and how does it aid in the reading of a text? You w 1

rnote,.by the Way, that some, critics use more than one of the fo ll wing

7*fp

6

senses, but for out present purposes thatfis not a problem.

1. The critic whorl; I shall call the intedionalist is interested-in

symbolic forms deliberately'constrticteaas persuasibn, argument, orr

propaganda, but which occur in tprms other than straight 9nblic speaking

or written argument. It is often helpful to have external evidence suggest-'.

ing a persuasive intent, but, especially for students,the search-for ex-

ternal evidence should not be allowed to interfere with close reading.

Given internal evidence of persuasive intent, the critic typically wants

tounderstand the shape of the text and its potential effect--the question

of actual behavioral effects is frequently a blind-alley for student

critics. A prime example of a work'suied to the intentionalist critic

is Upton Sinclair's The Jungle--a work clearly designed as propaganda.

But the most interesting questions for a critic of The/Jungle do not.stop

with ,Sinclair's stated intentions or statistical evidence of audience

response. Far.moiie interesting, from a rhetorical point of view, is

'.the question of the'interaction of form and reader: Sinclair wanted to

persuad7, and relied upon the vividnessof the novelistic form to pop-.

ularize his argument. But the novelistic form also vitiated his argument,

resulting in a stork of curious power that.misfired as propaganda and

fails as a novel. Sinclair's intention got it all started, but

critic's attention must quickly shift to -rhetorical resources and social7 .

and psychological contexts to make a reading of the text.

2. Our second critic is the so ial critic, interestedin the effects

of inadvertent persuasion if the intentionalist critic, takes in works

obviously structured to' persuade, the social critic takes in these and

all other works which, regardless of intent, reflect and influence' social ,--

and political, norms. Roland Bytties, for instance, writes of .the

S

t

.

bythologies4Of popular culture:' a recrtnting prter, a wrestlip,g-match,' or.

. ,

a_child's toy, and suggests that these ephemera perform political officese1 . .

:,

13..I\ 1

\4

incidentally and inadverteitly. Insoptr as he is a critic, as opposed.- ..

-4-'

..

e .7

tp a'scientistv the critic of social effects"workS liy.explication Of the. ,

hypothetical or potenekal effects $f a given text. The effects critic

asks what Italues the artifact asks us td share. The. premier else of this

.sort of criticism is in the emerging body of work which hasded to

, .

N reveal the dynamics of racism and sexism inherent' if our popular culpre;

4

but it also goer back to S. Karacauer's work with'German film in From-t% T 9

Caligari to Hitler. In a more traditional vein, Keith W. Stavely argues,

//r-

k that the style of Milton's prose tracts earries-its own politiceloide-10

effects, apart from the content of the tracts.'4.

3. A Close cousin of the effects critio*rbut.deservinga separate cate-

gory bfcause of a difference in interests and methods'is Wayne Booth,.whose

,interest in The Rhetoric of Fiction ig not in the broad social effects of i

0 i ..-

a work bUt in the persuaLon to a temporary state of thoughts and feelings( .

needed'to apprehend a work\of art. Booth's concept of the implied author

(and its necessary correlative, theiiplied audience), together with

Athe'critical method it entail's in its examination of persdn, narrator,

distance, and privilege, provide a way of talking sensibly about the way

works of art become available. to audiences--without having to subject

such-discussions to the charge of philistine disregard of the aesthetics11 t .

of art. ')Booth's cOntribution to the rhetorical analysis of fiction,

though still uniig debate, is now widely accepted. But there ismuchto

be. done: so far as I know there has been no published attempt to expli-12

cate the film as a narrative using Booth's methods.

1

4 .

4. 'Our next tyro senses of rhetoric both have to do with an interestt

in-the study of.rhetOric within the work. The first of these is the,.or

.

44

'critic of ijitative rhetoiic: The rhetoric addressed by onp chapactelh. p

to another within a dramatic or narrative wofk. .Thia sort of rhetoric

is the. dianoia and ethos of Aristotle's Poetics, and is a well-known and

potentially valuable topic in any rhetorical critic's system. 'In

addition to such traditional,studiesas Nicolas Gross' "Alcestis and the

Rhetoric of Departure," and Mary Maher "Internal Rhetorical

and the Interpretation of Drama," there is other4recent work looking for.

, .

the patterns of communicative relationship in fiction and television13

commercials as models of interpersonal rhe'toric.%

Diane Kowalski's?1976

,...,

master's thesis is a convincing demonstration of the rherorical roles

parcelled out to men and women in selgcted television commercials, and

Lynn Kelley is currently examining the rhetoric of men and women in a14

soap opera.

5. The other major sense cf rhetoric,Ithin the work is that:which looks

for rhetorical patterns and forms as elements in the structure of Works

not necessarily rhetorical in intention. It inquires into the irdentional,

dispositional, and stylistic resources available to and used by the author.

A comprehensive work of this type is Sister Miriam Joseph's Shakespeare's'15

Use of the Arts, of Language. This sort of criticism, e ssentially

formal in its approaelugoes beyond purely formal criticism to enlighten

ua, about historical and biographical matters, since it tells us what .

.

was traditionally available as the compositional resources of an author,

and gives an indicttion of tht sort of equipment a contempotary'audience'

could draw upon tp understand a work. Hence, even a formalist rhetorical

'1

4

fA

9

0/13

critic is interested in a work as something made and undetstood in the-

\contextof its own time, This sAt of rhetorical formalism can, it is

.

\true, 4roduce some uninteresting catalogs, as in those ponderous,revela-

Bons that, yes, indeed, such-and-such-,,,

a speaker did use ethos, logos,......,

and pathos._ Once again, lt iterary criticism is in advance of film criti-

- ,cism in its application of formalist rhetoric but that is partly be-

causee'--. .

it Woulcibe dlfficult to show that any, film maker t:Torked'from aI,...-- if,

...

. ..

system Of composition as coherent and traditional as renaissance rhetoric.'.

i

A critic could, apply the system of rhhorc only post hoc: certainly no ,

, . .

film direCtor ever drew upon it as his major compositioffar scheme. A4K

film critic's alternative is toltnd an analogousformal syspm.in film1 ,

.K. '

theory--the rhetorical equivalent of Spottiswoode's Grammar of Film t

Metz' Language of Film. * '. e

. ,

'6. Our next critic, the genre critic, is interested in how a message/,,

/.

constitutes a type how that type creates resources and obligations for

the author's invention, and how it also invilces a context that will in-

fllience.an audience's anticipation of and response to the work. The

theory of genres as the. search for #ixed and immutable types has had at

long and fitful histOry, ptodu ive of many definitions, but doomed to

failure. But a rhetorical' proach to genre;' centered on the notion of.

l'Igenre as comtex- tvfor composition and'response, holds much promise.

4Kathleen Ja mieson has demonprated tbt us fulness of the concept of

16 _

ggnreas a constraint upon thetors: And in criticism of the arts,

. genre criticism can help to combat lilfallatious notion Of the work of

art as singular and independent by noting that response t9 the work

,depends in part upon what sort of a work the audience takes it to be.

I

In film criticism,t 7 `-,)

forthe 460,1,

,,

cary. .,A. thetpxttical1

....,

the~ generic approach

fixeddefinition

of,.

critic would be more

10.1

ti

has, too often' searched unprofita-,

say, the western, Qr the documeq-

likely to speakof_sexeils_a____,,____

. .

,-.."01t,teKn oraqfbns hy,artists and audiences guided by conventibns that. .

4 1, , . .

can inford`nnd enrich 'a single work that extends'the genre, or that can

diminish a work the response to which is..simply a matter of habit. We

P.,

aan enjoy a well-made angater movie like Public Enemy because we have

learned how to watch it, and we can respond fully to Godard's Breathless

.only if weican'draw upon habits of response to gangster Movies-that Godard

invokes and then contradicts and transcends.`'

..

7. Another of of critics is interested in the author's'"lmplicit

-..

*

I,

i n

ss

ir---(- rhetorical theo ." InsAhe presentation of his own communcatio, and ina

... p 1

the depiction of the ,interaction of characters.in a novel, films or play,(

'.

.v . ..

4 the author frequently employs, in pasging, metaphors that refer to the

. i,

process of communication. Close examination of thesemetaphors may reveal

1.1

that the author'has a coherent, if not explicitly State912-theory 04

rhetorical interaction. Forinstance, Bonnie Johnsdn foundthat radidal

...

groups,in confl et with each other are likely to profess a theory of

,-)-, 17-

Communication th t implies the sinister control of mindless followers.

The search for implicit rhetorical f.hedries'is in its infaney, but is .

co

bdian important liad productive line of ingniry. The explica-

//tion of implicit.rDetorical theories can tell us much about the models of

commuaeation our society is likely to share, since we derive Our view. \/ h

of what is real in large part from our arts..And further, rhetorical

'theory'itseleis li1ely tolbe enriched. by close examinatiorof the

rhetorical.insights of creative artisfs, whose intuitive grasp of

12

A

,

syhholit interac tidas is likely to be, in many ca*es, richer than ftfht111W

, 4 ..

... . . .of academic theorists:. ''

.. .. -

,

41,

:examining particular works, is to evaluate fhe'extent to which they fulfill

th+romise of rhetorical theory as an ethical system. The idealist

tr

-8. Out next critic is the idealist rhetorical critic? whose concern, in,

a $ critic is not a utopian, but does insist upon recalling th&t rhetbric

'.originated as more,than a tech

*3- P

4 .boltc interdction, linking men ihjough pegch.

prehensive system of.being,

petsuasidn, th4t it is a com .

, a mode of public sym-18

'Ail apWcations of

rhetorical criticism 65the,arts and tomedia other than public-speaking

are thus partial andincOmplefe. I believe that there are important

gains in drawing dpon rhetbrical traditiAns for'en, understanding of the

arts and of modern media% but that it is also crucial not to deceive4.our-,

Alves into thiqking that we have thereby constituted 4.rhjerical col-

ture. Rhetorical criticism of the arts canje.11p us to understand certain. .

prpcesses and effects in symbolic Modes other than puBlicaddresst but

.the fallacy of equivocation is a consent temptation, and one dutyof the

etorical critic is to keep altvt'rhetoric as.a de'of public action

in ,a society constantly tempted away from rheto ical mode's of action by

d. .

'scientism, echnicism, privatism, aestheticism, and,supernaturalism.-

. -.9. -The finaL.critic ip our list is the eclectic., the ofie who,,asked

Sid.

which' Of the eight critics we have mentioned Sbjar he recognizes him-

'self as, answers;. all of the above. Although there-may la certain

loglcal problems in placing all eight in one system, there are, especi-

ally' for student critics, advantages ih tryoin& each to see what lt.wills

Iprovide. The eclectic rhetorical Critic is interested in'rhetoric.

41

1111reilliII

a.

sr

. .

three; a more discriminating historical survey would certainly multiply

the nins.by a factor of two or three.; But for the purposes of railingr

imajor questionsoit have fOund this set f critical agendas a useful'

12

the study of'what gives effectiveness to fore, in the pragmatics of

iommunication. Hetce,' he is interested in the technical apparatus 'of

:,.each system of communication (film theory, versification; rulesof

dramatic construction) in rhetorical technique as it might be applied

*to4"variety-of systems; in the effects, both private and public, ,of

given works; in how works are experienced by audiences; in how social

contexts andand artistic Conventions govern the experience of a particular I

work; in the ways imaginative works depict-how people Communicate; anda

in rhetoric as an ideal of culture. All of these have at various times

been advanced as the stated Objects and methods of people calling them-

selves rhetorical critics, and all'have demonstrated considerable bene-

fits. Conversely, each of these questions has been asked by other

criticg whose work is uninformed by rhetoric as a system of thought,'ana

'whose work is therefore diminished. in explanatory power.

The nine types of rhetorical critics t have described provide a

,useful critical'agenda for beginning students. A more rigorous logic

would probably reduce, the number of types from min. to perhaps two dr

starting point, a,learnable and flexibleaset ofropoi for beginning

critics. In classroom-use, each of the topoi needs to be 'further ela-

1. borated, to show how a given perspective implies a series of questions

1.

about a'given work. And once we have identifitld a self-desgribed

rhetorical approach, noted its critical asstAmptions740d 4aborated the

method by which it analyzes a text, we can go one step furehe'i-and ask

14

Now it might help in domains to which it has not been appli

13

for

instance, rh6torical approaches to.genres and to narrative techniques.

have been little used in film criticism.

FOT each4of the senses of rhetoric described in this paper, it

is possible 'to find examples of practical cri ;icism by critics who call

themselves rhetoricians. But for most of these senses, there,pre also

critics who do not call'themselves rhetoricians but are pursuing similar19

lines of inquiry. A Major task on the agenda of critical theory is

1among

trace the possibilities for cross-fertilization/rhetOricai critics and

)

critics of literature, film, television, and otHer nonoratorical forms:

the domain of the semiologist.the

Ohe's gm is to give a student /minimum amount of critical method

to stimulate the maximum appreciaeiow of a text, its forM and cdhtent,

its context,and Its communicative potential,- The, topical system I

have described has been helpful.to me 4and my sflidents, but ha,s yet to be

futty tested in teaching and,piaetical criticism. And the final

of a critical theory is not in its adherence to a static logic of fixed

forms byt in the ways it opens up understandings of particular sjrmholic

actions.

I

15-

1

FOOTNOTES

Fora some recent views, see Kenneth Burke, "The Party Line,"

a

620(1976),. 62-68; Wilbur Samuel Howell, "The Two-Party Line:

_

A Reply to Kenneth Burke," CW,42 (1'06), 69-77; Howell, Poetics,

Rhetojec, and\Logic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, i975); Donald.

Bryant, Rhetorical Dimensions irraitici'sm Baton Rouge: Louisiana

14

St to University.Press, 1973)./.

2 lineal, Burke,""Rhetoric andToetici;" Language As Symbolic

"1 Action (Berkeley: University of :Californil'Pfess, 1966),'p.307.

3Burke, The Philosophy of Literary'Form: 'Studies in Symbol. k

Action 3rd ed. (Berkeley: ,Uhiversity of California Press,'1973);

illWayne C. Booth; The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: Uyiversity of Chicago

_Pre'ss, 1961); Edward P. J. Corbett; ed:, Rhetorical Analyses of Literary

Works (Nei York: Oxford University Press,:1969).

4oric

1 rRhetal criticism provides a way.of discussing the author

withou t"having to see his work,as a puzzle dr.a symptom.

5John F. Wilson and Carroll C; Arnold,"Publicli ea in: As a

Liberal Art, 3rd ed.1 (Boston: Alyn & BacOn, 19

6

'

Carroll C. Arnold, Criticism, of Oral 'Rhetoric (Columbus, Ohio:

Charles E.. Merrille 1974 . /(--

7Thomas W. Benson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Invention.

pp. 72-82.

*.

A

r" r:sition ip Upton Sinclair's

Cortieil University, 1961.

'Rhetoric of FE* Toward

Communication Journal, 39

15

The Jun," unpublished M.A. thesis,

Jerry Hendrix and James A. Wood, "The

Critical Methodology," The SouthernSpeech

(Winter 1973), 105-122. t

8Roland Barthes; Mythologies, trans. Annecte Lavers ! (New York:%

Hill and Wang, 19.72). Barthes speaks of these myths as "depoliticized

speech," that'is, as symbolic forms that ex cisethe influence of, and

occupy the niche of political talk but that impliCity deny they alre

political: they seem "natural.:' We might all sucll persuasions I

"de-rhetorical."5

'See also Roland*Barthes, "Literature as Rhetofic," Sociology of

Literature arid Drama, ed. Elizabeth and Tom Burns (Baltimore: 'Penguin,

1973). For a semiological critique of the-New Criticism as out, of con-

text, se e Terence Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics (Berkeley: liniver-

sity of California Press, 1977), pp. 151-160.

The relation of structuralism and semiotic to rhetoric is problema-

tic. Structuralism, and one wing of semiology, regards human symbolic

action in reductionist ways, as does sociobiology. For them,the symbolic

form is a symptom of deep structure.

another wing.ofsemiology) tp the

rhetoric is committed (as is,

once ofr the symbolic forq, as

op,

humalirction: forthe rhetorician, a symbolic foreconstitutelrmn.0

experience important.f,or its 44n .salve and foT its iffplications as being,.

knowing, and doing. Foi..the rhetorician, a 'symbolic form, is a mode of

experience and action; for the structuralist, a rhetorical-action is

a relatively superficial derivative vari -of an invariant sub- I

structure. Semiology and structuralism have provided some.impoitant

1

ti

:re

4!.

16

.c . , .

tactics for symbolic analysis, and have forced attention to, wider domains

46,

of symbolic bebavior, but may be fundamentally4antithetijoal-to rhetoric :

..

and to criticism. This is the difference between Kenneth Burke and Ernst

Cassirer, betweenRoland Barthes and Claude Levi-Strauss. A rhetorician

attends to symbolic,NTlonsj a structuralist to syinbblic forms. .-

9See, for example, Marjorie Rosen opcorn Venus'(New York: Avon,.

ayf1974). Siegfried.Kracauer, From Ca igari to Hitler (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1947). Therd are many other studies of this type. A

sample:, T.I. Benss5n, rJoe: An Essay on phe Rhetoric of Film," Journal

of Popular Culture, 8 (Winter 1974), 610-618; T.W. Benson, "Videdl-

logy: Space and Time in Political Television," The Pennsylvania Sgsech.

Communication Ann-a1 31 (1975), pp. 23 -38; Marshall McLuhan, The

MechanrCal Bride (Boston: ,Beacon Press, 1967); Craig R. Smith, "Television'

NePs As Rhetoric," Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41 (1977),

147-159; William R. Brown, "The Prime-Time Television Environment

r- an4 Emerging Rhetorical Visions," QJS, 62 (1976), 382-399; Thomas S.\ IV

Frenti and Thomas B. Farrell,,_"Conversion of America's Consciousness: The

Rhetbrid of the Exorcist," QJS, 61 (1975), 40-47.

On literary criticism as the explicatioriof the method of a text

and its relation to a social and phenomenological context, see also

Sacvan Bercovitch, The Puritan Origins and the American Self (New Haven:

Yale Uniyersity.Press,'1915); Pane Fussell, The atillWaf and Modern

Memory (London: Oxford University Press, 1975). The social critic.

tks: What values does. this work ask me to share, or assume that I

share with it? How?,

.ot

(

.

10Keith W. Stavely, ThePolitics of Milton's Prose Style, Yale

17

0:` , .1

`Studies in English, 185 (New Haven: Yale University Press, .1975), p.

Siegfried Kracauer describes a politics of style for film" in .TheorY 6f,_

Film:;, The Redem n of Physical 'Reality', (New York: :oxford University

PreSS, 1960) .

.t

11Se

,

.e, fot iriptanEen SusUn Sontag, "Against Interpretation,"

..1 U.. -% o . .s.

' Agii.nst. Ipterpretatibn (New. Yorr: ' Dell, n. d: ) , p. '14: AIn place of A.. ,

. . . . ,

hemenouticS we needin erotics of ant." And, p. 12: "The besty

-e - :-----.1 e .. ..,

Mil cri-tiCisn4 and it is' undoMmon,:is of this -,sort that dissolves cpnsider-..

.

,

'

,

ationsof .cnntent,lino fhOselcf, f'o'r :" the-critiqs to whose'work -Sontag

is objecting typica ±LX p:roach:even: non-dicildrama and narrative byd r

..

of ' ... '''

Y

.iddntifying14s !'thete 01 " Tahigh "ttie* v OfNien Cake as4 synonymous, with its, -.

I'meaning.-':,--13oott'i 4pt the, oeheri..",Chicato tics'arso objedt- to 'such, : 1

r, , 1...

'''' 4 lig ' 4i % .r , 1,:ii

, i,

'' .StttiCtUtif ,r oductions-. 'Booth inquires into the tethniqire of creating''. ' 1 , --.1*.

,

aesthetic :experierre,S.-74he .st.ates.'of .t.hCipghts.and feelings' the work ''

.- F, t, ...

,

- ..

iliviesin a'readeri an& the means bywhIcfl those thoughts an&

are - .r

I , ": Vartat*Onson.Booth's metho4d 1n:the :0*iticism of _fiction include

feelings

41.

Irtzin., Gai, pe o the Itrippssible: A Rhetoric of Fantasy" (Urbana:.

The'Uni:siersii.y of:111114S Pre9s; 1976)';' Warwick Wadiington, _The .Confidence

Gam& in'American'titeFatute -(PrindetonL Trinceton Univeirsity:Press,, 1975).

Robert.SecorIhe Rhgtortc'-of ShiftingPerspectivese Conrad's Victory,. ..--r---7 :

/----- ,

,

The Pennsylvania 'State University Studies; No. 32 (Universiv-Park; ,The. 4..

Pennsylvania State Uniersity., 1.971). Se'also Nick Brown, "The. ,

Spectator -in -the -Text: The Rhotorit '01 SttgecOach," Film QuaTterly, 39

4 ,

(Winter 1,75-76), "2638.

19'4

I

13Nil:ID:Las P.. Groat, "Alcestis and the Rhetoric of Departure,"

18

QJS, 60 (1974): 296-305; Mary 2: Maher;- "Internal Rhetorical Anal 'Xsis

and the Interpretation of. Drama, ". 'The Central States 5peech Journal, 26-

(1975) , 2671-273.'

14Diane Irene Kowa/ski, "How Do Selected Television Comierciais

Deb ict Male-FemeleInteraction?" 'Inpub/iahed M.A. Thesis, The Pennsylvania

Skate University, 1976.,1

, ) ,-

,

t15Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare-sUse of the Arts of Language

. i

(1947: rpt. New Yoft: Ha

7er, 1966); seetalso Thomas 0: Sloan and Thaymond

-').

B. Waddington, eds., The Rhetoric of Renaissance Poetry (Berkeley:)

University ofCalifornia Press,, 1974).

16Kathleen M."Jamieson, "Antecedent Genre As Rhetorical tonstraiht,'

QJS, 61.(1975), 406-415. 'The standard text on the rhetorid of genres\

is in Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: rourdEsqays (Princeton:

ilnceton University Press, 1957),

17Bonnie McD. Joinson, "Images of the:Enemy in Inteigr&up Conflict,

ICentral States Speech Journal, 26 (1975)', 84.-92. The term "implicit

rhetorical theory" is Professor Johnson's. For another treatment, -see

T. W. Benson, "Poisoned Minds," Southern Speech Journal, 34 (1968),

1

54-61. g

18T. W. Benson and Gerard A.1.kuse'r, "Tdea1s, Superlatives, and

the Decline of Hypocrisy," WS, 59 (, 1973), 99-105; T. W. BensSn,

4"Rhitoric and AutObiography-: /le Case of MalcumX," QJS, 60 (1974),

- 1-13; Richard A. Lanham, The otives,of Elocidenote: Literary- .

. i

Rhetoric in the Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976);'

4

1

%,

19

Lawrente W. Roselifield, "An Autopsy-ottthe Rhetorical Tradition,".The

Prospect 'of Rhetoric,.Lloyd F. Bitzer and Edwin-Black, eds. (Englewood

ClLffs: Prentice-Hall, 1971); pp: 64-77.

A.chetorical ideal specifies cettain political and ethical relations,

and the means by which they are realized through.intentional, public,

' ratio 1/affetive, answerable, oral, probabalistic discourse. None of4

the symbolic forms or critical approaches we have touched upon fully

-..,

realizes these rhetorical ideals and so'each is non-rhetorical. ,But

each of the symbolic forms occupies in some measure and performs to some

degree the'offices that rhetorical discourse would; and the rhetorical. -

criticism of such forms can'call attentia to ways "...which such forms

constitutede-rhetorical speech. De-rhetoricalspeech is any symbolic

form that performs the functions of rhetoric, or occupies the ecological

n44he theoretically allotedto rhetoric, but'which does pot or cannot4

accept the obligations of rhetoric as a mode of bei , knowing,-and .

doing. This is.nOt to say that aesthetic forms have no business influ-

enciT7ttitudes. On the contrary, as Robert Joyce has shown, human2

4

subjectivity is largely a product of aesthetic eXperience. See Robert

Joyce, The Esthetic-Animal.: Man, The Art-Created Art-Creator (Hicksville:

1N2

.Exposition Press, 1975). To point out that a symbolic form 4s non-

,rhetorical is an act of description; td.argue that it is de- rhetorical

,.

is an act of political juwiggentn,o.But in an ge when acts of pure`.

rhetoric are discouraged by the social Conte ',-rhetorical criticism

can still be useful as a perspective and a method by which to notice

what is happening--and what is not happening.

p

'

2,0

Rhetorical critics, in theirystampede awdy rom.,the analysis of

public discourse,.maYbe :abandoning something of value and risking a

trivialization of the new media that now engage their attention.

19for ekample, many recent crielcs of mass media are following

lines,of inquiry parallel to rhetorical th'eory. :See'Stanley Cohen

and Jock Young, eds., The Manufacture of News: A Reader (Beverly,Hills:

Sage, 1973); Glasgow University Media Group, Bad News (London: RoUtiedge &

Kegen Pa.11, 1976); Stuart Hall, Ian Connell; and Lidia Curti, "The

'Unity' of Current Affairs Television," Cultural Studies, 9 (1976),

pp. 51-93; Michael...J. Arlen, The View from Highway 1 (New York: FarNr,

Straus & Giroux, 1976); Robert R. Smith, Beyond the Wasteland: The .'

Criticismof Broadcasting (Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication

Association, 1976); Colin Seymour=Ure, The Political Impact of Mass Media

(Beverly Hills: Sage, 197.4); Hor4ce Newcomb, ed., Television: The

Critical View (New York: Oxford University-Press, 1976); David'

Altheide, Creating Reality: How TV' News Distorts Events (BeverlyIR A

Hills: Sage, 19'0); C. Richard Hofstetter, Bias in the News: Network

Television News Coverage of the 1972 Election Campaign (Columbus: Ohio

State University Press, 1976); Steve Chibnall, Law4d-Order News

(London: Tavistock, 1977); Garth Jowett, Film: The Democratic Art

(Boston: Little, Brawn, 1976); Andrew Tudor, Image and Influence: Studies

in the Sociology of Film (London: Allen and Unwin, 1974); Robert Sklar,

Movie-Mad% America: A Cultu History of American Movies (New York:

Random House, 1976); 11>piam Stott, Documentary Expression and Thirties

America (London: Oxford:University Press, 1973).

,2 2