Post by jjnickell on Jan 19, 2016 21:37:33 GMT
Even though I disagree with his definition of rhetoric, I found myself appreciating a lot of McGee’s analysis and enjoying the article overall – possibly because I read this piece right after reading Laclau (yikes – post to follow). My problem with McGee’s definition here is the same one I have in much of the rest of his work: that he operates from an instrumental view of rhetoric in which rhetoric is generated and issued by a rhetor with intent. He writes: “Rhetoric is a natural social phenomenon in the context of which symbolic claims are made on the action and/or belief of one or more persons, allegedly in the interest of such individuals, and with the strong presumption that such claims will cause meaningful social change” (emphasis mine). I do not think that discourse must be intentional to be rhetorical; indeed, we communicate in ways that create, reify, or even change what McGee refers to as the “actions and/or beliefs” of others without even realizing it. It is for this very reason that there is, for example, burgeoning research on the implications of representations of identity in popular culture, – research that I am not sure McGee’s definition here would allow.
That said, I do agree with other aspects of McGee’s analysis – particularly his discussion of the rhetorical situation. He views models in which static, unidirectional relationships between speaker, exigency, and audience (such as the traditional view theorized by Bitzer and likely the alternative conception offered by Vatz) as problematic because, in his view, the relationships between these concepts are interdependent and dynamic. They all draw meaning from each other. This mutually constitutive view reminds me of Biesecker’s (1989) article, in which she uses the Derridian concept of differance to argue that the rhetorical situation is marked by the mutually reconstitutive relationships between these rhetorical elements; as such, they cannot be viewed disparately. Here is the citation for her article:
Biesecker, B. (1989). Rethinking the rhetorical situation from within the thematic of differance. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 22, 110-130.
That said, I do agree with other aspects of McGee’s analysis – particularly his discussion of the rhetorical situation. He views models in which static, unidirectional relationships between speaker, exigency, and audience (such as the traditional view theorized by Bitzer and likely the alternative conception offered by Vatz) as problematic because, in his view, the relationships between these concepts are interdependent and dynamic. They all draw meaning from each other. This mutually constitutive view reminds me of Biesecker’s (1989) article, in which she uses the Derridian concept of differance to argue that the rhetorical situation is marked by the mutually reconstitutive relationships between these rhetorical elements; as such, they cannot be viewed disparately. Here is the citation for her article:
Biesecker, B. (1989). Rethinking the rhetorical situation from within the thematic of differance. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 22, 110-130.
