English 5361: Week 11 Post – Contemporary
We are moving into modern times in our whirlwind tour of Rhetorical Theory. It seems like just yesterday, we were reading Plato, and today we are moving onto much more modern times. Here we see more of the move toward Rhetoric of the Written word versus that of the Spoken word. A modern theory of Rhetoric must be more about writing than speaking. People hardly even speak on the phone any more. Yet, even in the contemporary theory of Rhetoric, the audience is king. The dominance of the audience has been a recurring them throughout the history of Rhetoric, and I imagine it will continue to be a predominant part of the Theory throughout the foreseeable future.
According to James Herrick, "three audiences are particularly important in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's theory of rhetoric. This is because these three audiences can reliably test the rational quality of arguments" (p 200). The three audiences are the universal audience, the audience of one, and the self as audience. Of these, the one most troublesome to me is the universal audience. I dispute that it is possible for one or even a few rhetors to determine the universal audience. Each of us have different taste levels, educational backgrounds, languages, cultures, societal mores, etc. What I make think of as universal would be ridiculous for someone else. I still remember my Russian suite mate in college bursting out laughing when someone suggested a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. She was stunned that we were serious. She and her friends had decided that references to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in American books had to be jokes because no one could possibly eat that.
Do you think that there is truly a universal audience?
~~~~An aside from the discussion in class~~~~
When we discussed morality in science, I believe that I may not have been clear. Scientists do not view science as having an inherent morality. The scientific method has no spot for the morality of the thing being studied. Morality is truly a social construct and is dictated by societal pressures and laws, not by science. The morality of a scientific study is not decided by science itself but by the morals of the scientists performing the work and the morals of the society in which the work is performed. For example, when Pasteur discovered the small pox vaccine, he actually tested it on people, purposefully exposing them to disease. This would not be acceptable in today's research climate but was fine when he did it. Morality evolves with society, and society assigns the moral value to the work in question.
According to James Herrick, "three audiences are particularly important in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's theory of rhetoric. This is because these three audiences can reliably test the rational quality of arguments" (p 200). The three audiences are the universal audience, the audience of one, and the self as audience. Of these, the one most troublesome to me is the universal audience. I dispute that it is possible for one or even a few rhetors to determine the universal audience. Each of us have different taste levels, educational backgrounds, languages, cultures, societal mores, etc. What I make think of as universal would be ridiculous for someone else. I still remember my Russian suite mate in college bursting out laughing when someone suggested a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. She was stunned that we were serious. She and her friends had decided that references to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in American books had to be jokes because no one could possibly eat that.
Do you think that there is truly a universal audience?
~~~~An aside from the discussion in class~~~~
When we discussed morality in science, I believe that I may not have been clear. Scientists do not view science as having an inherent morality. The scientific method has no spot for the morality of the thing being studied. Morality is truly a social construct and is dictated by societal pressures and laws, not by science. The morality of a scientific study is not decided by science itself but by the morals of the scientists performing the work and the morals of the society in which the work is performed. For example, when Pasteur discovered the small pox vaccine, he actually tested it on people, purposefully exposing them to disease. This would not be acceptable in today's research climate but was fine when he did it. Morality evolves with society, and society assigns the moral value to the work in question.
posted by Jessica Badger at
6:43 PM
3 Comments:
What is the future of composing? Some would say it's about organizing ideas, finding an audience, amalgamating what's out there, and finding REAL problems that are open-ended and without solution. See http://www.alex-reid.net/2010/11/thinking-in-public-cloud-based-composition.html.
Jessica,
I share your concern about the difficulty in characterizing the universal audience. Any time you ascribe a trait to audience, you are making a judgment (one that has the potential preclude certain members of any audience form your persuasion). From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the smaller the group, the more traits you can define and the more likely that said traits will be applicable to all members of the group (because a single criterion must fit with a fewer number of people).
However, though it is difficult, I think it is a good way thinking about audience nonetheless. Often times by first starting with a larger audience and identifying some things that you hope to be norms across the board, you can give your argument a wider base to start from. And, in looking at a larger audience, you can begin to classify smaller audiences. And, even if your are writing for a specific audience, if you know things about other similar audiences, then can you can draft that knowledge in as part of your targeted audience.
For example, let’s say I wanted to make an argument to Baptists about something, and I used that as my starting point, I might be relying too specifically on what I deem as Baptist views, limiting my argument and perhaps falsely relying on the fact that every Baptist in the congregation believes the exact same thing---so only some of the Baptists would fit with my argument bubble. But, if I back up my approach by one-degree---to Christians---and used that to inform my argument, too, then it is more likely I will encompass the core Baptist views but also views that might be on the fringe, and consequently the individuals in the congregation who might subscribe to those marginal views)---thereby making it more likely for me to connect with the entire audience/congregation because I incorporated both very specific elements and more general elements. So, I do see value in thinking about larger audience.
Cris
Dear Jessica...
Interesting post about the mythical universal audience. Your post reminded me about a spirited discussion I had with a former professor about data organization. In this master's class, we were asked to recommend a hierarchy for the department's file structure. I argued that the concept of hierarchical trees was no longer relevant because we have at our disposal very powerful search engines that can quickly find our information for us. Mac's Spotlight and Google's desktop search work quite well for most purposes.
But what do hierarchies have to do with audience? Here's the connection:
Today, I have the technology to have an infinite number of versions of the same information artefact tailored to myriad audiences. Therefore, what does it matter that I'm writing to a universal audience when I can have have infinite "flavours" of the same thing...I have the technology to do so.
I think technology allows me to address a very specific audience from the same source document.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home