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.
Thanks for posting the questions. If I were forced to respond, I think I would say it depends on the text. However, even saying that "it depends" presumes a neutral-viewpoint possibility. In a way, every criticism always has a telos (though I'm still hung up on "telos." My dad always did say I have a thick skull. Haha.) There is always an underlying motivation, and in fact, the belief in motivation in turn motivates much rhetorical criticism, on both the instrumental and constitutive sides of the spectrum. Moving from that claim, I think I would answer that a critic is always advocating (just as a rhetoric is always advocating), and that the difference might be one of intensity. Meaning: to which degree is a critic upfront about the positions she is advocating? A critic is always forced to make choices, and since none of us come to a text tabula rosa, we can expect our past experiences and even our own teleological hopes to play out in a criticism. I've been thinking about this a bit lately, but I think rhetorical criticism might benefit from a little more reflexivity...why did a critic choose this particular text? Make this choice? Feel or criticize this way?
ReplyDeleteSo, in answer to your question, I'm back at "it depends." In my own budding scholarship, a quest for social change animates much of my research--and it usually manifests itself through topic selection. Even if my topic isn't social-changey, I don't think that complete skepticism is possible (or even good) for much humanistic research...any research, really. And I think the question for me is to what degree I am upfront about those choices.
Good thoughts David and Isaac! Personally I like to know where someone is going with an argument and/or their ideological perspective/purpose. To me it helps keep their criticism in perspective, not that it would invalidate what they say, rather it helps me be inquisitive into more particular areas of emphasis. Intuitively, I agree with Isaac- it seems that criticism and rhetoric inherently possess a level of advocation. Personally, I expect a degree of advocating, but I just prefer that people are up front about it rather than masquerade as value-neutral. Just my opinion though.
ReplyDelete