A Brief Introduction to the World of Rhetoric

Rhetoric according to Aristotle was the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. But what does that mean? What do people do in the field of rhetoric and why is it important that we learn about it? To understand these things first you must understand the following:

1. A text is anything that communicates.

2. Rhetoric is any text that persuades.

3. Composition is the assembly of a text.

The reality is that rhetoric surrounds you everywhere you go, however, as noted even by Aristotle over 2000 years ago, the true importance lies in our ability to percieve it. The easiest way to start thinking in terms of somethings rhetorical value is to ask yourself if whatever you're percieving is a text composed to persuade you about something? This can be very subtle as in the attire worn to a formal dinner to communicate class or something much more obviouse like the below Macy's advertisements.

Look at how happy she is with her bags from Macy's. This text was composed to persuade you to go to Macy's. Why? Because shopping at Macy's will make you as fashionable and happy-go-lucky as her. This advertisement was designed by a rhetorician, more specifically a marketing agent, somebody who specializes in rhetoric designed to persuade people that they should support you or your product (in this case Macy's). This is only one form of professional rhetoric. Others include the opposite of creating advertisements and instead focuse on deconstructing advertisements and analyzing what is so appealing or what goes unnoticed about the texts themselves. To see this in person check out:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/tag/jewelry/page/3/

In education rhetoric is important because it teaches us how to construct an argument to persuade others and it teaches us to deconstruct an argument to test its validity. This makes us not only responsible percievers of information, but also responsible communicators.

For more information on and helpful definitions of rhetoric check out the following web page:

http://rhetoric.sdsu.edu/about_us/what_is_rhetoric.htm

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/english/courses/sites/lunsford/pages/defs.htm

Rhetoric and Composition are Different

Rhetoric connotes communication.

Composition is the assembly of a text. Certainly if I write a paper, that is a text, and therefore it communicates and is a form of rhetoric. Even how that paper is composed; typed or written, with pictures or without, the composition makes up a large portion of the rhetorical value of the text. If I built a building, that building will be littered with texts; large windows may imply transparency or access while stucco and cinder may make an appeal to modern styles and the relevancy of the business located there. The texts as a whole communicate whether through written language as in the essay or visual component as in the case of the building and are therefore rhetoric.

That being said if rhetoric is any text that communicates, than composition can be rhetoric but only in the case that the “composition” is describing the formation of a communicable text. If I compose a symphony in my head that is still composition, but it is not rhetoric until that composition can be transcribed into sheet music or otherwise disseminated to others.

It is possible I think that you could term certain types of philosophical viewpoints as forms of rhetoric because of their ability to create an intertextuality in circumstances that would not otherwise communicate. What I’m getting at is essentially a philosophical critique as would be used in debate. For example I recently read an author who proposed that by merely sharing the terminology “digital divide” we are further instigating that divide because people become susceptible to discriminating based on a two party system, those who are able to access technology and those who are not. This thought pattern is communicable through merely circumstance and not a traditional text and is also a form of rhetoric.

The text I chose to analyze was “How Genders Work: Producing the J. Crew Catalog” by Paul Muhlhauser and Kelly Bradbury. I chose this text because I have had Dr. Muhlhauser as a professor and really enjoy his perspective and insights. The text also captured my attention because I love marketing and I love analyzing more discreet forms of rhetoric such as picture advertisements as opposed to more straightforward arguments even if it includes mixed media like the following meme:

 P.S. Two things I wish weren’t so popular on Facebook: Football and Politics.

“How Genders Work” is a digital publication breaking down the elements of different J.Crew adds to consider the “necessary elements” to sell J. Crew-like clothing.  Studying the aesthetic appeal of different fonts, language, and photographs (including the photo’s context and model’s body position in the photo), Muhlhauser and Bradbury consider the arguments presented by these elements and comment on why they may appeal to the targeted gender.

I think identifying these elements and producing publications like this is important for educating consumers who should be aware of the appeal being made to them by something simple like a clothing catalogue. Also when published and disseminated there is a certain level of accountability that is generated when companies feel “at-risk” of being discovered. Similar to the when companies realized they could no longer effectively market a product like soda just by having a celebrity say they drink it so it’s the “cool-kid” thing to do.

On the other side of this, I also think there is value for companies, educational institutions, and other organizations (non-profits, etc.) in learning to understand what motivates different demographics to do the things they do and spend the way the spend. Effective branding and marketing are just as important for influencing say – the next generation of students to value the liberal arts, as they are for J. Crew or Wal-Mart to sell clothing.