Critical Rhetoric and Telos

Recent scholarship in rhetorical studies examines the role of the critic and questions the involvement of telos with criticism.  This question offers an opportunity to explore the critics’ position in terms of responsibility and obligation.   

First, let me explain the issue at hand.  Telos is a term that derives from the Greek language and literally means “goal” or “purpose.”  In rhetorical criticism, telos can viewed as an underlying motive or intention.  Sloop and Ono (1991) suggest “an orientation toward criticism that acknowledges the contingent nature of meaning formulation.  Critics have a state in the critical act itself and therefore should describe their purpose through telos” (p. 48). 

Furthermore, the practice of telos with our criticism has the potential to offer scholarship in the form of advocacy and activism.  Ono and Sloop argue, “Critique is enhanced when the critic admits a position within a cultural context and realizes that benefits can be reaped from relinquishing skepticism from time to time during the critical process” (p. 50). 

As critics, is it our responsibility to advocate particular viewpoints with our scholarship?  Does this approach hinder the critical process?  The critic can only answer these basic questions at the end of the day.   However, I do encourage the readers of Richardson’s Rhetoric to reflect upon these questions. 

For further reading on the telos and critical rhetoric: 

Ono, K. A., & Sloop, J.M. (1992). Commitment to telos-a sustained critical rhetoric. Communication Monographs , 59, 48-60.

The Intersection of Public Memory and Visual Politics

The Intersection of Public Memory and Visual Politics

How to find a rhetorical artifact:

As I prepare to finalize an idea for the semester paper in rhetorical methods, a question has surfaced.  How does a critic find a “text” to analyze? 

I ask this question because I find value in discussing the various ways critics select rhetorical artifacts to study.  Personally, I am torn at the whole process. 

I’ve always felt a tension between theory and artifact with rhetorical criticism.  Sometimes I question the relationship between the two components and if there should be a preferable method of developing a paper topic. 

I find the selection process to be a complicated decision due to the long and lengthy attachment that comes with rhetorical criticism. 

Thus, I ask the rhetorical community to share ideas and thoughts on their personal approach to finding a text.  

Descriptive Rhetoric

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation” is a significant speech in American public address.  The speech functions to inform the American people of the events on December 7, 1941 with a compelling narrative.  The narrative paints a description of America and Pearl Harbor as a victim.  The victim mentality enabled FDR to use identification to identify Japan as a common enemy.  Through a victim mentality, FDR is able to construct a polarized view of international relations with Japan with an emphasis on “peace” and “war.”  These competing descriptions concerning national security assisted FDR to justify the declaration of war.  The speech illuminates the ability of political discourse to define a trajectory with American politics during a wartime crisis.  The American people are encouraged to support the notion of war as a redemptive solution and are promised an “absolute victory.”   

Introduction

Mario Cuomo’s 1984 Democratic National Convention speech titled, “A Tale of Two Cities,” sparked my interest in the art of rhetorical criticism.  The speech illuminated the power of language to create a vivid image of American politics. 

Rhetorical criticism offers theoretical tools to interpret the world of language.  The art of studying rhetoric provides insights into human motives with verbal, textual, and visual forms of discourse.

The purpose of Richardson’s Rhetoric Blog is to investigate methods of rhetorical criticism.  My goal as a rhetorician is to discuss and invite questions for consideration about rhetorical criticism.  More specifically, Richardson’s Rhetoric seeks to understand two basic questions:

1.   How can rhetorical criticism continue to grow and flourish with interdisciplinary method approaches? 

2.   What are the “multiple” roles of the critic?

These questions are the foundation for Richardson’s Rhetoric Blog.  Each week I will explore new issues and post thoughtful discussions about rhetoric.  Please join me on my academic journey through the world of language and criticism.