Following the inspirational conversation about critical rhetoric in class, I reflect back upon my first experience to McKerrow’s ideas. It is a narrative that I shall never forget.
It was my first year of graduate school at Syracuse University. I decided to take a seminar class with Dr. Kendall Phillips entitled, “Rhetoric, Power, and Subjectivity.” Little did I know, that the class was not exactly what I thought it, and would be a true intellectual journey.
While the readings in the course floated over my head and I had literally no idea what Hannah Arendt was talking about, or did I care what Foucault had to say, years later I can finally say I understand.
My experience with critical rhetoric is personal. For my final term paper, I decided to explore the Iranian Revolution of the 1970’s and Foucault’s interaction as a critic. I was curious about the issue of critical rhetoric, telos, and the responsibility or obligation of the rhetor. Sounds like a hot topic huh?
Needless to say my inexperience in the literature and the complexity of the topic lead me to one of the greatest adventures of my graduate life.
The reason I highlight this brief collective memory of my past is that it evokes a true “aha” moment of my life. I will admit, at the time, I was skeptical of McKerrow and the idea of “critical rhetoric”
I thought-what was the point?
Ok, so we reach a point in rhetorical criticism in which we seek to create a state of permanent criticism. Hmmm… I wonder at times why is this groundbreaking?
At what point did Kenneth Burke or Edwin Black decide that a little bit of criticism was efficient?
Long story short, if we do not continue to question the world, we fail as rhetorical critics….
Dave, thanks for sharing this story with us.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your "Long story short" line. It seems that some people are discouraged or tempted to adopt a "so what?" attitude toward critical rhetoric when they are faced with the reality that there will always be something to critique. As rhetorical critics we can't forget that even if questions are still left, our criticisms are still valuable.
Meh. My constant complaint: 1) the rhetorical tradition until the 20th century focused almost entirely on the training of the advocate (whether in political, legal, or religious contexts), but we have shifted toward criticism (the tradition did it too, but as a way of cultivating judgment and taste, which, to me, are still the purposes of criticism); 2) At the very least, critical rhetoric (with which I am sometimes associated) should suggest inventional possibilities, not remain endlessly circulating in (ultimately) critique detached from any *real* politics, whether top-down or bottom-up.
ReplyDelete