I
post in the shadow of Megan’s well-written voice impugning binaries. In the spirit of contrast, and because the experienced
minds of Fish, Pirsig, and Ramage are not daft to the shortcomings of
categorical thinking, it behooves me to consider the benefit of binaries. In making the case for these stark distinctions will hopefully defend and shed light
on the rhetoricians we have thus studied.
So, let’s talk Legos. Nearly everyone has memories of the classic
puzzle-toy; many involving the painful discovery of a lost one via the
soft sensory tissue of the feet. But
what did we do, when we were serious about creating something? We organized them in piles—color, shape, function
(wheels, shutters, joints), etc. We organized
them to more effectively build
them. The creation that manifested from
careful sorting and choosing was inevitably more creative and complex than the
simple piles on the carpet. The title of a category never exhaustively defined
the entirety of its contents, like “curvy pieces,” but was enough to allow
effective selection when creating.
 |
| Process. |
To me, this is the benefit of binaries. We define homo
seriosis and homo rhetoricus not
because all individuals must align with one category or the other, but because the
parting line enables examination of two dominant viewpoints regarding rhetoric. Doug once noted that “Economics posits impossibly rational humans as its baseline for analysis.” That is, the model is not so much existent or perfect, as it is a tool to analyze—to think. Consider that Classical and Romantic are two
ways of discussion, not two definitions.
Distinguishing “square” from “groovy” is imperfect, like my childhood
piles of Legos were imperfect (I never knew to which group the
half-brick/half-curve pieces belonged), but allows us to build, to create, and
to discover new ideas about rhetoric— about ourselves.
I am no proponent of confining boxes; I do not disagree
with the danger and fallibility of strict categories—male and female, for one. The spectrum exists, but would there be valuable
specialized female psychologists if we were entirely against categories? These professionals study the dominant traits
within
women not to confine them (as
many are feminists themselves) but to create a framework of understanding
saying, “these behaviors are what we often see at play,” to enable further
thinking and examination. In considering
the painted distinction of homo seriosis and
homo rhetoricus, it is essential to
lean conversation away from bad versus good, and instead consider how these
categories are working—what they offer as tools to examine rhetorical
situations. Pirsig noted that irritation
is symptomatic of a deeper issue (pg. 6.)
Indeed, our aversion to binaries reveals our vast difference and
uniqueness as individuals, which is great!
But, to again quote Pirsig, “If you tried to solve all the mystery, you’d
never get the machine fixed” (pg. 99.) Would
the conversations and observations we’ve had thus far in class been inhibited
or hindered if we lacked categories from which to build thoughts, impressions,
and ideas? Would our rich discussions
been enabled if we lacked the ideas put forth by Fish, Ramage, and Pirsig? How long would it take to read a textbook
titled, The Exhaustive List of Rhetorical
Perspectives? Such a book will never exist, because it
would be infinite. Romantic and Classic
views of thinking are tools we can use to deconstruct and rebuild our personal machines
of rhetoric. Megan noted that in her
perspective, individuals can “switch between classical and romantic based on
the situation they've been placed in.” Fish
writes, “Truth itself is a contingent affair, it assumes a different shape in
the light of differing local urgencies and the convictions associated with them”
(pg. 126.)
 |
| Choosing perspectives... |
So
choose pieces you like, from the piles of homo
seriosis and homo rhetoricus. Use the binaries as tools to facilitate the building of great conversations
and great pieces of writing.
Anjeli D.
No comments:
Post a Comment