big picture, rhetoric
I fully admit this journal is now even less useful to the welcome reader than yesterday’s weather report. That said, and with the events of the last two days on my mind, I would like to note that much of what has been posted in these “pages” has to do with the following two problems:
1) What do you do when the person who is addressing you is lying but you can’t believe they are lying
2) What are political consequences of interpellation – that is, of how we address someone and, especially, someone who is a foreigner.
In the first case, I fully admit to having resisted for a long time the idea that many Americans in positions of power lie. How can we be civic and yet permit the notion that our interlocutors are lying?
The second scenario is less difficult to parse. To that, I can only say thanks to my college professor Georges Dreyfus who taught a seminar on orientalism which had less to do with any particular “failure to communicate” but, rather, failures to communicate, in general, and the political implications of same.
I wish the syllabus for that class was available online – it’s not. Better yet, I wish it was a movie – or a running gag on the Daily Show.
November 11th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Jose,
A quick and dirty answer to questions of communication and rhetoric. I’m sure the Greeks were onto something when they divided rhetoric into three moments: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos: I need to know something about you in order for me to trust you. It is particularly important for me to know about your background (going to a fancy pants high school, e.g.). Pathos: you need to touch me on the emotional level before I can even begin to consider your rational arguments. You need to convince me why I should care, and, let’s face it, this never happens on the rational level. Logos: after these two things are in order, then reason steps in. Of course, these three are not in a simple sequential order but create feedback loops on each other.
Can this all be manipulated? Of course. But “rhetoric” should have a much better reputation than Socrates — and the rest of us — have given it. At least that’s what I’m learning from Irenaeus of Lyon.
We can talk about this more if you’re interested. Hope all is going well!
scott
November 11th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Scott, great to hear from you. Yes, the importance of rhetoric is probably the one good thought that runs through these disorganized posts (if not my life, in general).
Speaking of pathos, check out this excellent radio show (mp3). In particular, the section about paraplegics and emotions.